Docstoc

Ted Bernstein Petition

Document Sample
Ted Bernstein Petition Powered By Docstoc
					IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL

IN RE: ESTATE OF                 PROBATE DIVISION

SIMON BERNSTEIN,

                     FILE NO. 502012CP004391XXXXSB

Deceased



AND



IN RE: ESTATE OF                 PROBATE DIVISION

SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,

                     FILE NO. 502011CP000653XXXXSB

Deceased.



ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN, PRO SE

PETITIONER,

V.

TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A., (AND ALL PARTNERS,
ASSOCIATES AND OF COUNSEL), ROBERT L. SPALLINA
(BOTH PERSONALLY & PROFESSIONALLY), DONALD R.
TESCH ER (BOTH PERSONALLY & PROFESSIONALLY) ,
THEODORE STUART BERNSTEIN, AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVES ET AL., TRUSTEES, SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEES AND ESTATE COUNSEL AND JOHN AND JANE
DOES,

RESPONDENTS.
                                                                    Table of Contents

EMERGENCY PETITION TO : FREEZE ESTATE ASSETS, APPOINT NEW PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, INVESTIGATE
FORGED AND FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS SUBMITIED TO THIS COURT AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES,
RESCIND SIGNATURE OF ELIOT BERNSTEIN IN ESTATE OF SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN AND MORE ...... ......... ...... ... ......... . 6

I.      BACKGROUND .. ........ ............. ........................... ...... ........ ........ ....... .......................... ... ............. .. ..... .................. 7

II.     POST MORTEM EVENTS OF INTEREST ................... ... .... ......... .. .. .... ............. .... ...... ..... ... ... .. .... .... ..... ............. ... 21

Ill.        POST MORTEM AUTOPSY DEMAND AND SHERIFF DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF
MURDER ............ ....... ... ..... .... ........................................ ...... .. ...... .... .... ... ................ ... ... .. .... .... ........ .............. ........... 22

IV.         POST MORTEM ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES AND SEIZING
THE PROPERTIES FROM BENEFICIARIES ................. .... ... .. ...... ................ ....... ....... .. ........ ................. .......... ... ... .... .. .. 22

V.      ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE ESTATE POST MORTEM AND MORE ....... ........ ........... .................. ...... .............. 25

VI.         MISSING LIFE INSURANCE TRUST AND LIFE INSURANCE POLICY OF SIMON .... .. .. ..... ......................... ...... . 27

VII.        INSURANCE PROCEED DISTRIBUTION SCHEME ..... .......... ........ .. ........................................................ ..... .... 30

VIII.       PETITIONER FORCED TO RETAIN COUNSEL DUE TO PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES LACK OF DUTY AND
CARE, BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REGARDING MISSING ESTATE ASSETS
AND DOCUMENTS AND MORE ... .... ... ....... .... ........ .... ... .... .. ...... .... ............... ... .. ..... ... ... ... .... .. .. ..... ..... ... .... ... .. ... .... .... 37

IX.         FORGED AND FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY IN THIS COURT BY TESCH ER
AND SPALLINA CONSTITUTING A FRAUD ON THIS COURT AND THE BENEFICIARIES AND MORE .. ... ........... ...... ... 40

X.      INCOMPLETE NOTARIZATION IN THE ALLEGED 2012 AMENDED TRUST OF SIMON AND MORE .... ..... ... .... .. 43

XI.         INCOMPLETE NOTARIZATION IN THE 2012 WILL OF SIMON AND MORE .. .......................................... ..... 44

XII.        FAILURE BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES TO INFORM AND DEFEND BENEFICIARIES IN CLAIMS AGAINST
THE ESTATE VIOLATING FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES AND MORE .............. ..... ..... ... .. .. ....... ................................. 45

XIII.       THREATENED FORECLOSURE ON SIMON'S GRANDCHILDREN'S HOME BY SIMON'S ESTATE POST
MORTEM ....... ............ ..... .... ... .. ....... .......... ............ .................................. ... .......... ...... .... ............................. ...... ... ... 48

XIV.        VANISHING ESTATE ITEMS AND ASSETS ..... ....... ...... ........... .. .................... .. .. ........ .. ...... .................. ...... ... ... 51

XV.         THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THE IVIEWIT COMPANIES STOCK AND PATENT INTEREST HOLDINGS
OWNED BY SIMON AND SHIRLEY, AS WELL AS, INTERESTS IN A FEDERAL RICO ACTION REGARDING THE THEFT
OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES AND ONGOING STATE, FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS .... ...... 57

XVI.        THE ADVANCED INHERITANCE AGREEMENT ("AIA" ) ....... ............ ... ........ .... .......... ....... ...... ....................... . 82

XVII.       ALLEGED MURDER OF SIMON BERNSTEIN ............... .. .. .................. ..... ...... ......... .... ............ ..... ........... ... ..... 85




                                                                                              2
XVIII.         LACK OF DUTY AND CARE BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, TRUSTEES AND ESTATE COUNSEL,
CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND MORE ... ... .............................. .... ...................................... 87

XIX.       CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, ESTATE COUNSEL AND TRUSTEES
DISCOVERED ............ ... ... ...................... ........... .. .. ...................... .. ..................... ..................... ....................... ........... 88

XX.        ARGUMENTS ........ ............. ... ....................... ...... ............... .............. ... ............ .......................................... .... 90

XXI.       CONCLUSION .......................... .............................. .. .. ..................... ...................................................... .... ... 96

XXll.       PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................... ....... .... .................................... ...................................................... 97

XXlll .         EXHIBITS ....................... .... .. ... .. .... .... ........................................ .. ............. ...... ......... ................. .............. 118

    EXHIBIT 1- CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN THEODORE, ELIOT AND SIMON BERNSTEIN ............................... 118

    EXHIBIT 2 - EMAIL TO SPALLINA WITH UNNOTARIZED WAIVER ................................ .... ...................... ............ 118

    EXHIBIT 3 -JILL UNNOTARIZED WAIVER ...... ..................................................................................................... 118

    EXHIBIT 4 - SHERIFF DEPARTMENT INTAKE FORM ............ .... .. .... ....... .... .................... ........................... ........... 118

    EXHIBIT 5 - EMAILS REGARDING LOST llT .......... ..... .. ........................................................................................ 118

    EXHIBIT 6 - EMAILS REGARDING LOST HERITAGE POLICY ................................ .. ..................................... .... .. .. . 118

    EXHIBIT 7 - SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELE                                                         AMR") ....................................................... 118



    EMl llll lT 9 .    s~~LLINA         Lmm            REGMBIN~             1IERITAGE        f'OLI~· B;~~Fl~I~~@::                              ::: ::::::: :: : :: :: :: :        ~~:
    EXHIBIT 10-TRIPP scan LETIERS TO SPALLINA FOR DOCUMENTS, ETC. ............................................... ...... 118

    EXHIBIT 11 - TRIPP scan CONFLICT LEITER .............................. .......................................... ........................... 118

    EXHIBIT 12-WAIVERS NOT NOTARIZED .......... .. ................................ .......... ......................... .... ...... .......... ....... 118

    EXHIBIT 13-THIS COURT'S MEMO TO TS .. ............. ........... .. ............................ .. .... .. .... ......................... .... ....... 118

    EXHIBIT 14-WAIVERS NOTARIZED IN PAST ......................... ........................... ................................................ 118

    EXHIBIT 15 - SIMON'S WAIVER SIGNED POST MORTEM .......... .. .. .............................................. ............. ...... .. 118

    EXHIBIT 16 - PETITIONER REVOCATION OF WAIVER ........................................................................................ 118

    EXHIBIT 17 - SIGNATURE PAGES OF ALLEGED 2012 AMENDED TRUST ................... ....... .... ... ......................... .. 118

    EXHIBIT 18- SIGNATURE PAGES OF 2012 WILL OF SIMON ..... ...... .. .......................... .... .... .... ...................... .... 119

    EXHIBIT 19- RELEVANT PAGES OF WILL EXHIBIT ................................ ........ ................... ... .. .. ........ .. ................ 119

    EXHIBIT 20-STANFORD TRANSFER OF FUNDS RELEASE LEITER .......... .... ........................ .... ... ...... ................. 119

    EXHIBIT 21- BALLOON MORTGAGE .............................. .................. .. ............................................................ ... 119

    EXHIBIT 22 - PROMISSORY NOTE ...................................................................... .............................................. .. 119

    EXHIBIT 23 -ADVANCEMENT OF INHERITANCE AGREEMENT ("AIA") ............................................................. 119

    EXHIBIT 24 - WALT SAHM CARRY OVER LOAN                                      · ·············· ··~ ~·· :····.·········· ················································· 119
EXHIBIT 25 - PAMELA EMAIL'S REGARDING LOST HERITAGE POLICY .............................................................. 119

EXHIBIT 26 - PETITIONER LETIER EXCHANGE WITH TS REGARDING IVIEWIT ................................................. 119

EXHIBIT 27 - LETIER FROM ELIOT TO SPALLINA RE IVIEWIT'S RELATION TO PROSKAUER AND LEWIN .......... 119

EXHIBIT 28 - EXPOSE CORRUPT COURT ARTICLES ................................................................................... .... .... 119

EXHIBIT 29 - MOTION FOR REHEARING BASED ON FRAUD ON THE COURT AND OBSTRUCTION ........... ........ 119

EXHIBIT 30 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE .............. ........................ .......... ............... ..... ....... ........ ........ 119

EXHIBIT 31-TRIPP          scan BILL .... ............ ...................................................... .................. ............. ....... ..... ...... . 119
                                 TABLE OF CITATIONS



CASES                                                                    PG

IN RE ESTATE OF MOE SENZ,
417 SO. 2D 325, FLA. APP. LEXIS 21159 (FLA. DIST. CT. APP. 1982)         91

IN RE ESTATE OF BELL,
573 SO. 2D 57 , 59, FLA. APP. LEXIS 9651 (FLA. DIST. CT. APP. 1990)      91

LANDON V. ISLER,
681 SO. 2D 755, *756, FLA. APP. LEXIS 9138 (FLA. DIST. CT. APP . 1996)   92

MCDONALD V. MAURIELLO (IN RE ESTATE OF WEJANOWSKI) ,
920 SO. 2D 190, *191, FLA. APP. LEXIS 1804 (FLA. DIST. CT. APP. 2006).   92

AM . RED CROSS V. ESTATE OF HAYNSWORTH,
708 SO. 2D 602, FLA. APP . LEXIS 1361 (FLA. DIST. CT. APP . 1998).       93

RBC MINISTRIES V. TOMPKINS,
974 SO. 2D 569, *571, FLA. APP. LEXIS 2029 (FLA. DIST. CT. APP. 2008)    94

HAINES V. KERNER,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)                                                 96

MACLIN V. PAULSON,
627 F.2D 83, 86 (CA7 1980)                                               96

FRENCH V. HEYNE,
547 F.2D 994, 996 (CA7 1976)                                             96

ESTELLE V. GAMBLE,
429 U.S.97, 106 (1976)                                                   96

CRUZ V. BETO,
405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972)                                                 96

CONLEY V. GIBSON,
355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)                                                96
BELL ATL. CORP . V. TWOMBLY,
550 U.S. 544, 561-63 (2007)                        96


OTHER AUTHORITIES

SECTION 733.504, FLORIDA STATUTE             90,91,111

SECTION 733.609, FLORIDA STATUTE                92, 112

SECTION 518.11 (1 )(A), FLORIDA STATUTE             92

SECTION 732.5165, FLORIDA STATUTE            93,94, 111

SECTION 733.107(2), FLORIDA STATUTE (2005)          94

RULE 5.160, FLORIDA STATUTE                    101,117

RULE 5.230, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  101

RULE 5.235, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  101

RULE 5.310, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  102

RULE 5.320, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  102

RULE 5.340, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES              102,117

RULE 5.341, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  103

RULE 5.350, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  106

RULE 5.370, FLOR/DA PROBATE RULES                  107

RULE 5.385, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  108

RULE 5.401, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  108

RULE 5.404, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  108

RULE 5.405, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  109

RULE 5.407, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES               99,109

RULE 5.440, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  110

RULE 5.460, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                  110
SECTION 733.620,TITLE XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS
     CHAPTER 733 PROBATE CODE                         113

SECTION 736.0406, TITLE XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS
     CHAPTER 736 FLORIDA TRUST CODE                   113

SECTION 736.1001, TITLE XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS
     CHAPTER 736 FLORIDA TRUST CODE                   113

SECTION 736.1002, TITLE XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS
     CHAPTER 736 FLORIDA TRUST CODE                   114

SECTION 736.1004, TITLE XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS
     CHAPTER 736 FLORIDA TRUST CODE                   116

SECTION 831.01, TITLE XLVI CRIMES FORGERY
AND COUNTERFEITING                                    116

SECTION 831 .02, TITLE XLVI CRIMES FORGERY
AND COUNTERFEITING                                    116

RULE 5.065, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                     116

RULE 5.346, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                     117

RULE 5.400, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                     117

RULE 5.403, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                     117

RULE 5.498, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                     117

RULE 5.406, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                 109,117

RULE 5.430, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                     117

RULE 5.160, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES                 101.117

RULE 5.404, FLOR/DA PROBATE RULES                 108, 117
    EMERGENCY PETITION TO: FREEZE ESTATE ASSETS, APPOINT NEW
 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, INVESTIGATE FORGED AND FRAUDULENT
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES,
    RESCIND SIGNATURE OF ELIOT BERNSTEIN IN ESTATE OF SHIRLEY
                      BERNSTEIN AND MORE


This Entire Petition is written, filed upon the knowledge, information and belief of Eliot Ivan
Bernstein ("Petitioner"):

Petitioner appears in this action "In Propria Persona" and asks that his points and authorities
relied upon herein, and issues raised herein, must be addressed "on the merits" and not
simply on his Pro Se Status.

1.   That Eliot Ivan Bernstein ("Petitioner") and Petitioner's children are
     Beneficiaries/Interested Parties in the estates of Simon Leon Bernstein ("Simon") and
     Shirley Bernstein ("Shirley") and so named under their Wills and Trusts and other
     instruments that are part of their estates, where the combined estates of Simon and
     Shirley are herein after referred to as the Estates ("Estates").
2.   Venue of this proceeding is in this county because it was the county of the decedents'
     residence at the time of decedent's death.
3.   The nature and approximate value of the assets in this estate are real, tangible and
     intangible personal property in excess of $20,000.000.00
4.   That Petitioner is petitioning this Court to freeze the Estates and apply all remedies it
     deems appropriate after this Court can determine the effect and actions to be taken
     regarding all of the following issues detailed herein, including issues of alleged,

       i. Forged and Fraudulent documents submitted to this Court and other
          Beneficiaries/Interested Parties as part of an alleged Fraud on this Court and the
          Beneficiaries/Interested Parties, including a document that was sent back for
          notarization after Simon's death that was sent via US Mail back to this Court
          notarized and signed by Simon in the presence of a notary, after Simon was
          deceased,
      11. Breaches of Fiduciary Duties by Personal Representatives/Trustees/Estate Counsel
          acting in the Estates,
     iii. Conflicts of Interest by Personal Representatives/Trustees/Estate Counsel acting in
          the Estates,
     1v. mismanagement of the Estates assets by Personal Representatives/Trustees/Estate
          Counsel acting in the Estates,
      v. failure to produce legally required accounting and inventories and more by Personal
       vi. creation of fraudulent trust in the estate of Simon and forged and fraudulent
           documents filed in the estate of Shirley by Personal Representatives/Trustees/Estate
           Counsel,
      vii. duress and undue influence used to coerce Decedent Simon to make near deathbed
           changes that changed long established Beneficiaries and appointed new Personal
           Representatives to act in the Estates, and,
     v111. possible murder of Simon reported to authorities by others, leading to Police Reports
           and an Autopsy, as further defined herein.

5.    That Petitioner is petitioning this Court to construe this motion and pleading of Petitioner
      liberally as being filed Pro Se and to grant reliefs claimed in prayer and such other reliefs
      as this Court deems fit.


I.       BACKGROUND

6.  That Simon and Shirley were married for fifty-one years prior to Shirley's passing in
    2010. They had five children, Theodore Stuart Bernstein ("Theodore"), Pamela Beth
    Simon ("Pamela"), Petitioner, Jill Marla lantoni ("Jill") and Lisa Sue Friedstein ("Lisa").
    That Simon and Shirley had ten lineal descendant grandchildren.
7.  That Simon was an established Pioneer in the life insurance industry since the 1970's
    and had become very successful in business, Shirley was a raise the kids mom and
    together they accumulated a great many assets, including real estate, private banking
    investment accounts (mainly invested in blue chip and low risk stocks), businesses worth
    tens of millions, jewelry worth millions and more.
8.  Simon and Shirley provided well for their children and grandchildren throughout their
    lives, took their children and their friends on trips throughout the world, sent them all too
    fine colleges and shared their wealth not only with their family but their friends and co-
    workers. They were loving and caring 1 .
9.  That on December 08, 2010, at age 71, Shirley passed away after a long and valiant
    struggle with lung and breast cancer and major heart problems.
10. That on May 10, 2012 Petitioner was summoned to a conference call by Simon with his
    siblings and the estate planners, Robert Spallina ("Spallina") and Donald Tescher
    ("Tescher") of Tescher & Spallina, P.A. ("TS").


1
 Eliot Eulogy for Shirley
https :ljwww.facebook.com/ notes/el iot-be rnstei n/ m other-of-un con d itiona l-love/17244 7362 786005

Eliot Eulogy for Simon
htt s: www.facebook.com notes eliot-bernstein simon-bernstein-eulo            469529029744502
11. That Petitioner was requested to attend this meeting by Simon where he learned for the
    first time that he had beneficial interests in the Estates. No notices of interests,
    accountings and inventories were ever provided by TS to Petitioner as a Beneficiary after
    Shirley's death, other than a Letter of Administration after approximately six months and
    then NOTHING else.
12. That Simon started the meeting stating that he was unsure if TS and Spallina had kept
    Petitioner and his siblings up to date on the estate of Shirley since her passing. That
    Simon was unsure if Spallina had kept all the siblings informed as obligated because
    when he invited Petitioner to the meeting he was surprised to learn that Petitioner had
    only received one document from Spallina regarding his interests in the estate since the
    passing of Shirley.
13. That the meeting was to discuss Petitioner, Jill and Lisa giving their interests in the
    Estates, which constituted the entire Estates assets that were going to them, instead
    going to Simon and Shirley's ten lineal descendent grandchildren to share equally.
    These changes according to Simon were to solve problems caused by Theodore and
    Pamela, which were causing Simon extreme emotional and physical trauma and duress
    at that time.
14. That the three children that are the designated Beneficiaries under the 2008 Trusts of
    Simon and Shirley are Petitioner, Jill and Lisa and their six children who also were
    Beneficiaries. That in Petitioner's instance even prior to the proposed changes, Simon
    and Shirley had intended to leave almost all of his inheritance to his three children
    directly to protect Petitioner's family for specific safety reasons further defined herein.
15. That Petitioner learned in the May 12, 2012 meeting for the first time that Theodore and
    Pamela had already been compensated from the Estates while Petitioner's parents were
    alive, through acquisitions of long standing family businesses worth millions of dollars
    and thus were excluded from the remainder of the Estates.
16. That Theodore, Pamela and Petitioner worked in the family businesses, Theodore and
    Pamela for their entire lives and Petitioner had his own companies for approximately 20
    years doing business alongside the family companies and yet when Simon chose to sell
    the businesses, he sold them to Theodore and Pamela alone.
17. That these businesses provided millions of dollars of income for many years to Theodore
    and Pamela who have both led extravagant and rich lives from insurance plans invented
    and sold primarily by Simon and his companies. Theodore and Pamela both worked out
    of college in Simon's palatial offices, while Petitioner worked from his garages at college
    in Madison Wisconsin and then after college in California with his college friends/co-
    workers.
18. That Petitioner and his sister Jill on the other hand, who had worked for the family
    businesses for years were pushed out by Pamela as she took over and despite their
    years in business with the companies were left othing in the buyouts for their years of
    service and have modest net worth.
19. That Pamela who lives in Magnificent Mile on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago is very well
    off from these acquisitions and has a high net worth as result, so much so as to buy her
    college bound daughter in 2008 a condominium in Magnificent Mile worth over a million
    dollars, directly next to her condominium worth several million dollars.
20. That Theodore had done well in the family businesses and so much so as to have gone
    from Bankruptcy and living at Simon and Shirley's home, to going into business with
    Simon in Florida and then suddenly buying a large intercostal waterfront home in Florida
    worth approximately USO $4,500,000.00 million dollars, right as Petitioner's car had a
    bomb blow up in it and Petitioner was living in squalor, to be defined more fully herein.
21. That Petitioner's sister Lisa is married to the son of a partner at Goldman Sachs in
    Chicago who also works at Goldman Sachs and so she has never needed financially.
22. That Petitioner and Jill however have lived modest lives in modest homes and worked
    outside the family businesses for years on their own. This despite the fact that
    Petitioner's independent insurance agency worked to build the family insurance
    businesses through his sales efforts nationwide for almost twenty years. Petitioner was
    the largest sales producer for the companies for a decade before leaving the companies
    in frustration of working with Pamela and not getting paid according to contract.
23. That Theodore and Pamela had been completely cut out from the remainder of the
    Estates assets, including exclusion of their four children as they had already been well
    compensated through these business acquisitions which were the majority of Simon's
    net worth at the time and so Shirley and Simon decided together that the remainder of
    their Estates would go to the children who had not received or asked for any inheritance
    while they were alive.
24. That Petitioner learned Theodore and Pamela however had become very angry with
    Simon over this decision, with Pamela and her husband David B. Simon ("David") even
    threatening litigation against Simon after they learned of Simon and Shirley's decision to
    leave them wholly out.

     i. Language from May 20, 2008 Shirley Bernstein Trust Agreement and November 18,
        2008 Shirley Bernstein Amended Trust Agreement

                    E. Definitions. In this Agreement,

                           1. Children Lineal Descendants .

                  . . . Notwithstanding the foregoing, as I have adequately provided for them
                  during my lifetime, for purposes of the dispositions made under this Trust,
                  my children, TED S. BERNSTEIN ("TED") and PAMELA B. SIMON
                  ("PAM"), and their respective lineal descendants shall be deemed to have
                  predeceased the survivor of my spouse and me, provided, however, if my
                  children, ELIOT BERNSTEIN, JI          !ANTONI and LISA S. FRIEDSTEIN,
                  and their lineal descendants all predecease the survivor of my spouse and
                  me, then TED and PAM, and their respective lineal descendants shall not
                  be deemed to have predeceased me and shall be eligible beneficiaries for
                  purposes of the dispositions made hereunder.

     ii. Language from August 15, 2000 - Will of Simon Bernstein

                  ELEVENTH: The term "descendants" as used in this Will shall specifically
                  exclude my daughter PAMELA BETH SIMON and her descendants. Except
                  as provided in Article SECOND of this Will, I have not made any provisions
                  herein for PAMELA BETH SIMON or any of her descendants not out of
                  lack of love or affection but because they have been adequately provided
                  for.

    iii. Language from alleged 2012 Amended Trust of Simon

                  E. Definitions. In this Agreement,

                  1. Children, Lineal Descendants .

                  . . . Notwithstanding the foregoing, for all purposes of this Trust and the
                  dispositions made hereunder, my children, TED S. BERNSTEIN, PAMELA
                  B. SIMON, ELIOT BERNSTEIN, JILL IANTONI and LISA S. FRIEDSTEIN,
                  shall be deemed to have predeceased me as I have adequately provided
                  for them during my lifetime.

25. That Simon at the time of the May 12, 2012 meeting to amend the 2008 Trusts of he and
    Shirley's they had designed and executed together was acting under extreme duress
    and suffering from documented mental depression from what his children were doing to
    him, this extreme stress placed on him was worrisome to Petitioner as Simon had a long
    history of heart problems.
26. That shortly before the May 12, 2012 meeting until Simon's passing, new and profound
    physical symptoms began to slowly appear leading to major medication alterations to his
    prescribed daily medications and additionally he was put on several new medications by
    his doctors, as evidenced further herein.
27. That Simon then began a series of medical problems that in June and July of 2012
    began manifesting serious and bizarre symptoms and he was repeatedly taken seriously
    ill and multitudes of tests were ordered leading to several diagnoses of new problems
    with unknown origins and new treatments. For 2-3 months leading up to his death
    Simon became rapidly and progressively worse and heavily medicated until his death.
    Some of the tests and surgeries during this period, include but are not limited to,

     i. Bahamas Trip - approx. June 22nd - 24th ret rns with major flu like symptoms
     ii.   July 24, 2012 Returns from a trip to Panama and is ill and having massive headaches
    iii.   August 14, 2012 Shoulder and Neck MRI to determine massive headaches,
    iv.    August 15, 2012 Brain MRI to determine massive headaches,
     v.    August 20, 2012 Brain biopsy surgery,
    v1.    Prednisone lowered due to massive headaches.

28. That in fact, Simon's physical and mental health rapidly declined and he never recovered
    from these new more serious symptoms that started almost exactly when he supposedly
    signed these near deathbed changes on July 25, 2012 to allegedly amend and radically
    alter his earlier 2008 trust ("2008 Trust") and create a new alleged 2012 trust ("Amended
    Trust"). Copies of that alleged 2012 Amended Trust are attached further herein and will
    evidence that that the alleged Amended Trust document was not notarized, witnessed
    and executed properly in accordance with law and part of a larger scheme involving
    alleged forged and fraudulent Estates documents, as evidenced and exhibited further
    herein.
29. That TS, Spallina and Tescher knowing of Simon's health problems and heavy
    medication use during this time period should not have allowed Simon to sign anything,
    as during this time the alleged 2012 Amended Trust was supposedly signed, prior to the
    closing of Shirley's estate, Simon was in great pain, heavily medicated and under
    massive stress and under psychological care.
30. That Petitioner and Petitioner's children's counsel have been denied by TS, Spallina and
    Tescher copies of the prior 2008 Trust of Simon that changes were made to in order to
    create the alleged 2012 Amended Trust so that Petitioner cannot analyze exactly what
    language was changed, despite repeated requests to the Personal Representatives for
    over seven months since Simon's passing.
31. That on information and belief the bad blood between Pamela, David and Simon and
    Shirley, actually began several years prior to Shirley's death and lasted until Simon
    passed away. Where on information and belief problems with the acquisitions of the
    long standing family companies during the buyouts may have led to some of these
    problems.
32. That allegedly after the business buyouts went sour, Pamela and David and their
    daughter did not see Simon and Shirley and boycotted them almost completely for
    several years until shortly before each of their deaths. Simon and Shirley were crushed
    by this loss and their behavior and severed their ties with them. Pamela may have
    known she was also excluded from the Estates in the 2000 Will of Simon already
    exhibited herein.
33. That Petitioner learned several months before Simon's death that Theodore and Simon
    were also separating from each other in business, as tensions had gotten out of control,
    when Simon invited Petitioner and his wife Candice Bernstein ("Candice") to help him
    start a new business venture with a new partner · a new office he had just leased, in a
      wholly new industry and where he would now be relocating wholly separate from
      Theodore.
34.   That on information and belief, this separation was partially a result of bad blood over
      the splitting of the businesses and other business dealings gone badly and allegations
      that Theodore was taking monies from the businesses for himself in excess and finally
      because of Theodore's continuing anger and rage at Simon over learning he was also
      excluded from the Estates.
35.   That Simon was also hurt by a lawsuit filed weeks before his death by his business
      partner William E. Stansbury ("Stansbury") against he and Theodore, as he had
      considered Stansbury to be a friend and likewise Stansbury claims he was Simon's
      friend too in his lawsuit. However Stansbury makes claims that Theodore was
      fraudulently signing checks made out into Stansbury name and converting the funds
      illegally into his own accounts and more, in a lawsuit that now is part of the Estates
      creditors, as more fully defined herein.
36.   That the newly contemplated near deathbed changes sought to be made to the long
      standing 2008 estate plans of Simon and Shirley that were proposed in the May 12, 2012
      meeting, still skipped leaving anything at all to Theodore and Pamela, as again they had
      already been compensated, and so the inheritance was to be left instead directly to their
      children, where three of their four children were already adults. Therefore, Theodore and
      Pamela should have very little to do with the Estates but instead have total control with
      exclusivity to the Personal Representatives and where the Beneficiaries and Interested
      Parties have been totally shut down from ANY information or funds, as further defined
      herein.
37.   That Simon stated to Petitioner after the May 2021 meeting that he was skipping over
      leaving anything to Theodore and Pamela as he also felt that if he left the monies directly
      to them in the proposed 2012 Amended Trust, their children would never see the
      monies. Simon felt that Theodore and Pamela were using their current wealth gained
      through advancements on their inheritances through the company acquisitions to control
      their children by leveraging their monthly allotments to their children in college if they did
      not join in the boycott of Simon, making it virtually impossible for their children not to join
      in. In Pam's circumstances the boycott of both Simon and Shirley, by David, Pamela and
      their daughter began several years earlier.
38.   That on information and belief, letters were sent and conversations held shortly after
      Shirley's death with Theodore, Pamela, Simon, Spallina and Tescher, notifying them that
      they had been left out of the remainder of the Estates. After Shirley's death, the
      Beneficiaries were not notified by the TS of their interests.
39.   That on information and belief, after Shirley's death when Theodore and Pamela learned
      they and their families were wholly excluded from the Estates remaining assets, they
      began a campaign against Simon to have all his children and grandchildren not see or
      talk with him. At the time Petitioner did not kn     that Theodore and Pamela had been
      cut out of the Estates or why, as Petitioner did not learn this until the May 12, 2012
      meeting.
40.   That the reasons given for blackballing Simon prior to the May 12, 2012 meeting were
      claimed first to be worries that Shirley and then Simon's personal assistant Rachel
      Walker ("Walker"), who was living and working with Simon was allegedly possibly
      sleeping with Simon and trying to get at Simon's money. When Simon took a new
      female companion, a friend and former employee of his he had known since
      approximately 2003 and he talked with weekly for years, Maritza Puccio ("Puccio"), the
      accusations by Petitioner's siblings shifted from Walker to now Puccio trying to swindle
      Simon's monies and get at the Estates assets.
41.   That Pamela did however come to see Simon once from the time Shirley passed until his
      death, several months after Shirley's passing, when she came to clean out Shirley's
      closet with Lisa and Jill, who all came in town from Chicago, as Simon was considering
      having Puccio move into his home with him, along with his personal assistant Rachel
      Walker ("Walker") who was already moved in from on or about the time of Shirley's death
      and even had a room she called her own.
42.   That upon this visit, Petitioner's sisters took not only all of Shirley's clothing and personal
      effects but also took 50 years of Jewelry and other valuables Simon and Shirley had
      accumulated worth an estimated several million dollars and were assets of the Estates.
43.   That when Petitioner later questioned Simon about this he stated that they were merely
      borrowing these items. Simon was confused and upset when he realized that they had
      taken all of Shirley's possessions, he was very weak and depressed when they
      descended upon him and he did not know they took all of her valuables until after they
      left town and were back in Chicago with them. They left with loaded suitcases and
      shipped several containers they packed for themselves and never notified Petitioner or
      Theodore that they were carting off Shirley and Simon's personal affects and more. That
      Petitioner later learned that at that time Petitioner's sisters took these valuables to
      protect the items from Walker and Puccio who they thought would steal them.
44.   That since no inventories were ever sent to Petitioner as a Beneficiary of Shirley's estate
      by TS, Petitioner does not know exactly what Shirley had bequeathed and to whom.
45.   That Simon stated to Petitioner that he had never gifted, sold or transferred the jewelry
      and other items they took out of the Estates and therefore everything they took that was
      part of the Estates would all still be part of the Estates upon his death for distribution
      according to the Estates plans to the proper Beneficiaries. Simon stated that Petitioner's
      sisters had inventory lists of the jewelry and there was an insurance policy on the items
      that they took and all would be returned when he passed for equitable distribution to the
      Beneficiaries of the Estates.
46.   That Petitioner did not learn from Theodore until after Simon's death that Theodore was
      extremely angry at Simon, Pamela, Lisa and Jil upon learning that Petitioner's sisters
      took Shirley's entire personal effects and jewels and left him and his children none of it,
      not even a keepsake.
47.   That upon trying to recruit Petitioner's immediate family to join an ongoing boycott
      against Simon a few months after Shirley died, it was told to Petitioner by Theodore's
      children, Eric Bernstein ("Eric"), Michael Bernstein ("Michael") and his step son Matthew
      Logan ("Matthew") that the reason all the children and grandchildren had joined together
      to boycott Simon, according to Theodore and Pamela, was now due to his companion,
      Puccio.
48.   That Theodore's children were urging Petitioner and his family to get on board as they
      were enabling Simon, as Puccio they claimed was after his money, stealing his money,
      had stolen money from Shirley and Simon in the past and was now physically and
      mentally abusing Simon and other horrible allegations about her. They claimed they
      knew things about Puccio's past from when she worked for their father as a Nanny.
      They alleged she had swindled money from Simon regarding breast implant money
      when Puccio worked for Simon and Shirley and more. They stated they hated Puccio
      and refused to attend any family occasions with her as she was only after Simon's
      money and he was too enamored by her to see clearly. They stated that Shirley was
      rolling over in her grave as Puccio would desecrate their home and rob Simon and that
      Petitioner must join the boycott.
49.   That Petitioner and Candice refused to participate in such a hurtful scheme against
      Simon and Puccio and told Theodore's children that Simon and Shirley would be
      ashamed of their bizarre and cruel behavior and that they should not continue to boycott
      seeing Simon as it was breaking his heart and depressing him and to tell Theodore and
      anyone else involved that we thought this was a bad idea. Especially disturbing is that
      Theodore's children were partially raised by Simon and Shirley, even when they were not
      well physically, for many years and even moving Theodore and his children into their
      home for several years. They raised Theodore's children during a lengthy personal and
      financial crisis Theodore went through resulting in his declaring bankruptcy, divorce, loss
      of his home and eventual tragic overdose death of his ex-wife and resulting loss to the
      children of a mother.
50.   That Petitioner's siblings became angry with Petitioner's family when they would not join
      the boycott and were increasingly upset that Petitioner's family in fact was friendly with
      Puccio and had increased their visits to Simon.
51.   That after learning of this exact ploy against Simon by all of Petitioner's siblings, their
      spouses and even their children, Petitioner wrote letters at Simon's request to Theodore,
      to have him state exactly what was going and why he was not attending the Jewish
      Holiday of Passover with his father who was still in mourning at Petitioner's house. That
      these correspondences are attached herein as, Exhibit 1 - Email Correspondences
      Theodore and Eliot, and wherein Theodore cl ·ms, "My primary family is Deborah and
      our four children. They come first, before anything and anyone. The family I was born
      into is no longer, that is just a fact, it is not a matter of opinion, it just is."
52.   That Petitioner's wife Candice and children, Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein ("Joshua"},
      Jacob Noah Archie Bernstein ("Jacob") and Daniel Elijsha Abe Ottomo Bernstein
      ("Daniel") and Petitioner, did not align with the rest of Petitioner's siblings and their
      families and instead remained steadfast in their weekly meetings with Simon, continuing
      to have brunch with him every Sunday, a tradition started over a decade prior in 1998
      when Petitioner's family moved to Florida for the first time to be with Simon and Shirley,
      a tradition continued until their deaths.
53.   That the boycott by Simon's other four children and seven grandchildren sent Simon into
      deep depression, which he began psychotherapy to attempt to cope with. Petitioner's
      immediate family increased their weekly visits to fill the loss and so began seeing Simon
      2-3 times a week or more, trying to spend as much time with him as he was now not only
      suffering from the loss of Shirley whom he loved profusely but now suffered the
      catastrophic loss of almost his entire family supposedly over his girlfriend.
54.   That on information and belief, Jill and Lisa also did not know of the exclusion of
      Theodore and Pamela from the Estates and were recruited into this boycott based solely
      on the claims of Theodore and Pamela about Puccio's past employment history with
      Theodore and the alleged crimes she had committed and that Puccio was after Simon's
      money.
55.   That after speaking to Puccio and Shirley and Simon's personal assistant Walker and
      several close friends of Simon, it was learned by Petitioner that Pamela and David even
      tendered a letter to Simon threatening to start a lawsuit against Simon regarding their
      removal from further inheritance under the Estates. That both Puccio and Walker
      describe this as the saddest day for Simon they had ever witnessed and Walker claimed
      to Petitioner to have read the letter to Simon upon receiving it at his home and described
      him falling to pieces.
56.   That during the time from Shirley's death to Simon's death all of Simon's children but
      Petitioner boycotted their father and hated on Puccio incessantly, even after the May 12,
      2012 meeting with TS where all of these matters were to be put to rest by the proposed
      changes to the 2008 Trust of Simon. After the May 12, 2012 meeting it is believed that
      Jill flew out once more to see Simon with her daughter and would not stay with Simon in
      his home because of Puccio and the trip went sour as Simon refused to leave his
      girlfriend Puccio at home.
57.   That the exclusion from the Estates appears now to have been the bane of Theodore
      and Pamela's anger all along and the real cause of their boycott of Simon, not Puccio,
      nor Walker, and it appears they had recruited Lisa and Jill into the scheme also based on
      concern over Puccio hurting and robbing their father, not on the fact they were angry
      over the Estates plans. Having Puccio as the focus of the boycott could get all the
      children to participate in the boycott in concern nd designed to make Simon suffer
      wholly through the total loss of his children and grandchildren and allegedly try to force
      him to make changes to the Estates plans or suffer never seeing or talking to any of
      them again.
58.   That in the May 12, 2012 meeting, Simon clearly stated that the reason he was making
      these changes was to resolve family problems caused by the exclusion of Theodore and
      Pamela that were causing him too much stress. Clearly Simon was under undue
      pressure to contemplate making these changes, desperate to see his children and
      grandchildren and physically and mentally beaten down. At this May 12, 2012 meeting,
      Petitioner learned that this assault may have been due to Theodore and Pamela's anger
      over their exclusion and claiming the businesses they had acquired were not doing as
      well as when they acquired them and they wanted back in on the remaining Estates
      assets.
59.   That at that May 12, 2012 meeting Petitioner agreed to sign and do anything that would
      relieve Simon's pain and stress caused on him by Theodore and Pamela, as it appeared
      there was a proverbial "gun to his head" now to either change his estate plan or lose
      almost his entire family and continue being abused. Petitioner agreed to the proposed
      agreement but only if he could see the documents necessary to evaluate what he would
      be signing and what rights and interests he would be forsaking.
60.   That Jill and Lisa agreed also to make any changes necessary to alleviate Simon's
      stress after reviewing the documents to be sent by Spallina and it was then decided that
      documents would be sent for the children to review and sign. Spallina stated it was
      necessary to close out Shirley's estate and then Simon could make the proposed
      changes to the 2008 Trust of Simon when everyone sent in their documents.
61.   That Petitioner was led to believe the proposed changes to the 2008 trusts of Simon and
      Shirley would not be effective until all the children of Simon reviewed and returned the
      documents and Shirley's estate was officially closed.
62.   That the closing of Shirley's estate however did not occur until after Simon's passing, as
      Jill had failed to return the documents sent to her until after Simon had passed in
      October of 2012, evidenced and exhibited further herein.
63.   That despite being a Beneficiary of Shirley's estate, Petitioner had never seen or been
      sent by TS any estate documents of Shirley's from the time of her passing, wholly
      violating their duties to the Beneficiaries of Shirley's estate.
64.   That Petitioner requested in the May 12, 2012 meeting that TS send Petitioner the
      documents to sign and all relevant documents pertaining to Petitioner's rights and
      interests in the Estates, so as to determine what Petitioner was being requested to
      relinquish rights in.
65.   That Tescher and Spallina agreed to send Petitioner all the relevant estate documents to
      review but then only sent Petitioner a "WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF
      PETITION FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
      DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIA Y AND CONSENT TO DISCHARGE"
       ("Waiver(s)") to sign. A three part document waiving his rights and interests in Shirley's
       estate, the document predicated on an understanding of the rights being waived and yet
       TS did not send any accountings, inventories or anything else to aid Petitioner in
       assessing what interests or rights he would be signing away.
66.    That at that time in May Simon's health was beginning to rapidly decline and therefore
       Petitioner signed the Waiver almost instantly upon receiving it on May 15, 2012 and
       returned the document promptly so as to cause Simon no further grief or suffering, as
       Petitioner worried, as did Simon, that some of his recent maladies were due to his long
       standing heart problems and that holding off and Petitioner waiting for the underlying
       documents from Spallina to sign could kill him. In fact, Petitioner still waits for the
       underlying documents.
67.    That Petitioner signed despite never having seen the underlying documents or
       understanding any of the interests he would be forsaking in Shirley's estate and despite
       the fact that the Waiver signed required review by counsel and an understanding of what
       the signor was signing. See Exhibit 2 - May 15, 2012 Eliot Email to Spallina with Signed
       and Not Notarized Waiver.
68.    That TS according to well established law should have sent the underlying documents
       and inventories, accounting, etc. to Petitioner as he was a Beneficiary of Shirley's estate.
       This notification of interests should have already been done within the legal time frame
       after Shirley's passing but TS had never notified him.
69.    That on information and belief, Jill and Lisa were also not notified properly and according
       to well-established law of their beneficial interests but Spallina did however have
       conversations and correspondences with Theodore and Pamela notifying them of their
       exclusion .
70.    That Jill however did not sign her Waiver to close the estate of Shirley prior to Simon's
       passing, see Exhibit 3 - Jill's Waiver with No Notarization Dated, October 01, 2012, two
       weeks after Simon passed. Therefore Petitioner never thought the proposed 2012
       Amended Trust was agreed to and completed by Simon and all the siblings, as Shirley's
       estate had never even been closed.
71 .   That in the eight weeks from July 15, 2012 when Simon allegedly signed the improperly
       notarized and improperly witnessed alleged 2012 Amended Trust and the time Simon
       passed on September 13, 2012, his health went wholly downhill to his sudden and
       unexpected death. In the eight weeks after he supposedly signed the alleged 2012
       Amended Trust, Simon,

       1.  began suffering massive headaches that got worse each week, beginning weeks
           before his death that caused Simon to go for a brain scan only weeks prior to his
           death,
       ii. was delirious, confused and suffering from allucinations and fainting spells,
    iii. had been radically medicated, including but not limited to, pain pills, steroid injections
         to his shoulder and neck, Prednisone and other radical changes made to his daily
         prescriptions. Including wild fluctuations and increased and decreased dosages of
         Prednisone during the time between July and September, all making Simon virtually
         out of his mind during this time period and physically deteriorating, all which should
         be well documented with his doctors in his medical records,
    1v. was given an improper pill of Ambien by Puccio, along with an unknown amount of
         prescribed pain medicine on September 08, 2012, causing Puccio to panic and state
         that she may have caused him harm. Puccio called Petitioner's home worried as all
         night as he had not slept watching over Simon and now wanted to rush Simon to the
         hospital. Puccio asked Candice to come to the home immediately as she thought he
         may be dying and evaluate his condition. Puccio claimed he was hallucinating and
         delirious and speaking to his mother on the bed, prompting Candice to immediately
         go to Simon's home to assess his health. Simon then went to Dr. Ira Pardo, MD
         ("Pardo") of Boca Raton with Puccio where Simon was cleared of any danger and let
         home by Pardo according to Puccio.

72. That on September 12, 2012 Petitioner and Candice were again contacted with a
    medical emergency, this time by Walker, who summoned them to come immediately to
    Simon's home, as she stated that something was terribly wrong with Simon, that he was
    weak, confused, disoriented and she thought he needed to be rushed to the hospital.
73. That Candice arrived at Simon's home at the same time Diana Banks ("Banks"), Simon's
    business secretary, arrived at the home and Puccio returned from the club's gym shortly
    thereafter and they all determined that Simon needed to be taken to the Delray Medical
    Center hospital to be evaluated immediately.
74. That Puccio stated to Candice that Simon was fine prior to her leaving the home to work
    out approximately an hour earlier and Walker stated that when she got to the home
    Simon was in a complete physical meltdown, undressed and hallucinating wildly. They
    then allegedly carried Simon to Banks' car as he was unable to walk without their aid and
    rushed to the hospital.
75. That at the hospital Petitioner notified the hospital upon arriving that Simon's condition
    may be related to side effects from the Ambien given by Puccio earlier in the week, in
    combination with the pain medicines doctors prescribed and the combination might still
    be having an effect on him and to immediately run a drug screen to determine what
    medications he was on, as Puccio, Walker and Banks could not be sure what had been
    given to Simon in the last 24 hours.
76. That Simon was taken to the hospital suffering from pain, bloating, dizziness and mental
    confusion and disorientation and in severe pain. He spent the day doing tests and
    meeting with heart and infectious disease physicians. At first, early in the day, doctors
    advised Petitioner that his father had suffered a heart attack. Petitioner immediately
      contacted his siblings to notify them of the peril Simon was in and have them get to the
      hospital ASAP. Jill and Lisa immediately hoped on the next plane out of Chicago and
      arrived several hours later. Theodore claimed to have to attend a meeting before
      coming and arrived Boca several hours later and began to request a variety of
      cardiologists personally known to him to treat Simon and none of them came, delaying
      getting anything done for a few more hours. Simon's normal cardiologist, Seth J. Baum,
      MD, FACC, FACPM, FAHA, FNLA could not handle the case due to some form of
      conflict with the hospital but he was to have sent his medical records to the hospital. In
      the end the hospital's cardiologist was appointed as attending cardiologist.
77.   That an attending physician then came and stated that they did not think he had a heart
      attack and the infectious disease team was called due to concerns about his other vital
      functions which appeared highly irregular and he was then checked into ICU but listed in
      stable condition.
78.   That in the early evening the attending cardiologist finally arrived in the ICU and stated
      that Simon's heart appeared fine, his tests did not show markers of a heart attack and
      that he did not think Simon had suffered a heart attack and in fact was not suffering from
      heart problems at all. Instead, he claimed that Simon may have contracted a flu like the
      "West Nile Virus" and he would begin that evaluation the next day but that he was fine for
      now and stable.
79.   That the Doctor asked Petitioner if he remembered him from two weeks earlier as the
      attending physician at the brain scan and Petitioner replied that he did, as Petitioner had
      taken Simon with Candice and Puccio for the test. The Doctor stated that he was
      perplexed at what was going on after a thorough review of Simon's files now and those
      from just days ago that were fine and so he had went back to retrieve the older files and
      compare them, which is why he claimed he did not get to Simon earlier in the day, as it
      took him time to compare and contrast and try to determine what was happening.
80.   That the Doctor then asked about Simon's travels, which had been fairly extensive over
      the last year and then advised the children present to go home and get rest as he was
      stable.
81.   That Puccio decided to stay and keep company with Simon overnight in the ICU. Simon
      was heavily medicated but appeared in stable condition as Petitioner left to go home.
82.   That several hours after leaving Simon, in the early morning of September 13, 2012
      Petitioner was suddenly called to the Emergency room in the middle of the night at
      approximately 12:30am by Puccio, crying hysterical and stating Simon was Code Blue
      and they were resuscitating him. When Petitioner arrived at the hospital only minutes
      later with Candice, they were stopped at the ICU by the nurse in charge because she
      stated no one could go in to see Simon until security arrived, as someone had just
      phoned in a call that Simon's condition may have been part of a "murder plot." That
      Petitioner has still not discovered who made this call to the hospital at that time.



                                                1
83. That when Petitioner and Candice were sent to the waiting room they found Puccio in the
    waiting room crying and hysterical as she had been removed from the ICU room from
    Simon after the call regarding a potential murder was made, right after Simon was
    beginning to need to be resuscitated for the first time.
84. That Petitioner while Simon was being resuscitated for the 2nd time still had to wait
    outside until the attending nurse allowed him in, right as security arrived, to see his
    father. When Petitioner arrived at his father's room, Simon was in a bad way with nurses
    already working on him with a full resuscitation crew.
85. That Petitioner's siblings, Theodore, Jill and Lisa arrived at the hospital shortly thereafter
    and Pamela was called in Israel via telephone as she would not be cutting her trip short
    to return home unless he got worse. The attending nurse then asked if the children
    wanted to continue to attempt resuscitations or let him pass.
86. That the hospital stated that without papers to the contrary, Petitioner was the
    designated person in charge of any medical decisions for Simon and so Petitioner stated
    that they should continue to resuscitate Simon, at least until a doctor could arrive to
    determine his condition and make determination as to what was causing this sudden and
    bizarre meltdown of his vital organs.
87. That several more resuscitations were necessary and all of the other siblings wanted
    Petitioner to "pull the plug" instantly with no further lifesaving efforts and let him die,
    claiming he wanted to be with Shirley and so no further efforts should be made to save
    his life and telling him to go be with her and more.
88. That Petitioner did not agree with his siblings decision to "pull the plug", as he was
    unsure if these were symptoms of the West Nile Virus and if he would recover if
    resuscitated, as Simon was just cleared of any heart problems by the attending
    cardiologist hours earlier and so despite his siblings protests Petitioner continued to have
    them proceed with lifesaving efforts.
89. That unbeknownst to Petitioner, during the life saving efforts Walker allegedly was
    ordered to go to the home and retrieve Wills and Trusts of Simon by Theodore that might
    have a Living Will and advance directives for medical decisions, as the siblings felt that
    Petitioner would not stop when Simon would have wanted them to stop and let him die
    without further attempts at resuscitation. The situation was not however like Simon was
    in a vegetative state for a period of time and we were deciding to discontinue life support
    after careful consideration. Petitioner also was unaware that Candice had been sent to
    Simon's to accompany Walker.
90. That after several resuscitations, a Doctor arrived and took charge of the resuscitations
    from the head nurse. That he first believed Simon would recover and after several more
    attempts had failed to stabilize Simon for more than a few minutes at a time, he advised
    Petitioner that Simon now appeared technically dead and the drugs they were injecting
    him with each time were making him appear to be alive each time they resuscitated him
    but he could not hold on any longer on his own. The Doctor finally stated that in his
     medical opinion after the amount of time lapsed and number of efforts made, he may be
     gone and even if he did come back he may have severe brain damage or worse. On the
     Doctor's advice, Petitioner finally gave up the efforts and instructed the doctor to no
     longer resuscitate him and let him die naturally to the delight of his siblings.
91 . That on September 13, 2012, Simon passed away.


II.   POST MORTEM EVENTS OF INTEREST


92. That within minutes after Simon's death, Petitioner was instructed by Theodore to go
    immediately to Simon's house to make sure that his companion Puccio was not robbing
    the house, which seemed strange to Petitioner. Petitioner wondered why Puccio,
    Candice and Walker had left the hospital in the first place prior to Simon's passing and
    Theodore claimed Puccio was going to rob the safe and home and had left some time
    ago and he had sent Walker and Candice to watch her and get some paperwork he
    needed from the home for the hospital.
93. That Theodore stated he would handle the hospital paperwork but somebody had to go
    to Simon's home ASAP and sent Petitioner who really did not want to go as Simon had
    just passed minutes earlier and he did not feel well or like driving but agreed to go.
94. That in the parking lot of the hospital, as Petitioner was leaving the hospital, Candice and
    Walker were returning from the home of Simon. Walker informed Petitioner that
    Theodore, Jill and Lisa had sent her away to the home to get documents necessary for
    hospital paperwork and have Walker watch over Maritza and throw her out of the home.
95. That in the parking lot of the hospital Walker stated to Petitioner that she was instructed
    to get documents to give Theodore, any documents regarding the Wills and Trusts she
    was to remove from the estate and now held in her hands. She claimed Theodore
    needed them as they contained important estate and other documents for the hospital.
    Walker then urged Petitioner and Candice to return to the home to watch over Puccio, as
    Walker claimed she had to bring Theodore the documents immediately for the hospital
    paperwork and did not trust Puccio. That Walker was convinced at that time that Puccio
    may have murdered Simon through poison or overdose.
96. That when Petitioner and Candice arrived at Simon's home, Puccio was packing her
    bags, crying and was scared, as she stated that members of Petitioner's family had
    threatened her and told her that if she was still at the home when they arrived they would
    cause her harm.
97. That other impoliteness's were exchanged according to Puccio when she was at the
    hospital as Simon lay dying and that she feared so much as to run out of the hospital and
    get her belongings and leave the home. Puccio left despite Petitioner and Candice
    informing Puccio that Simon had told them at the hospital the day before he died, that in
    the event anything happened to him and if Peti ioner's siblings tried to do anything to
       harm Puccio or throw her out of the home, that she had rights to stay in the home as it
       was her primary residence with Simon for many months prior. Despite informing Puccio
       of Simon's request she still wanted to leave as she feared harm by Petitioner's siblings
       and Simon's assistant Walker.


III.    POST MORTEM AUTOPSY DEMAND AND SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
        INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF MURDER


98. That early in the morning of September 13, 2012, hours after Simon's passing, a
     Coroner called Simon's home and asked Petitioner if Petitioner was ordering an autopsy
     to discover if Simon had been "murdered." Petitioner informed the Coroner that he knew
     nothing about murder allegations or that an autopsy was ordered at the hospital but that
     Petitioner would have Theodore call him back as he had done all the paperwork at the
     hospital he was calling in reference to.
99. That Petitioner immediately contacted Theodore who stated to Petitioner that his siblings
     were ordering an autopsy based on the allegations that they thought Puccio murdered
     Simon, a belief Petitioner did not share and does not share at this time.
100. That Theodore stated he had friends in the Boca Raton, FL legal community he was
     already speaking to about what to do, including but not limited to, his friends at
     Greenberg Traurig ("GT") and TS and that he would contact the Boca PD from referrals
     from his friends to start a formal police investigation into Simon's death.
101. That several shortly thereafter the Sheriff Department (See Exhibit 4 Sheriff Department
     Intake Form) arrived in multiple squad cars and surrounded Simon's home and
     proceeded to then take statements on the front lawn for several hours regarding an
     alleged murder plot by Puccio.
102. That shortly after the Sheriffs arrived at Simon's, Theodore, Jill and Lisa showed up at
     Simon's house with Walker, in order to give statements regarding the accusations that
     Puccio had murdered Simon by poisoning him or overdosing him with medications. That
     Walker claimed that Puccio was switching pain pills with his nitro pills with intent while he
     was confused and that too many pain pills were being mixed with other unknowns.
103. That Pamela, David and their daughter were in Israel at the time of Simon's death and
     did not come back for several days after learning of Simon's death and so Petitioner is
     unsure if they gave statements to the Coroner or Sheriff at that or any time.


IV.     POST MORTEM ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES,
        SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES AND SEIZING HE PROPERTIES FROM
        BENEFICIARIES
104. That later that afternoon on September 13, 2012, Theodore stated that he had just
     spoken with Tescher and Spallina and that he was appointed to act as the Personal
     Representative/Executor/Successor of the Estates for the real estate and personal
     properties and Tescher and Spallina were also Personal Representatives. That
     according to Theodore the alleged 2012 Amended Trust of Simon now gave TS, Spallina
     and Tescher, the authority to act as Trustees and Personal Representatives over the
     Estates and he claimed they had chosen him as a Personal
     Representative/Executor/Successor Trustee because he was the oldest surviving child.
105. That the Court should note here that the alleged 2012 Amended Trust that TS, Spallina
     and Tescher were now acting under as Personal Representatives will be shown herein to
     have been constructed and signed under duress, improperly notarized and improperly
     witnessed by Spallina who authored the alleged 2012 Amended Trust document, which
     purportedly now gave him these brand new legal capacities over the Estates and
     additionally interests in the Estates. Petitioner believes that these documents may have
     never been completed by Simon and the alleged forged documents exhibited and
     evidenced further herein may prove such theory to be true.
106. That since the time immediately after Simon's death TS has acted in these capacities as
     Personal Representatives, Trustees and Counsel in handling the Estates and in
     assigning Theodore the roles he has been acting under.
107. That TS, Tescher and Spallina have been working almost exclusively with Theodore
     since that time, sharing and controlling the assets and documents with Theodore and
     Pamela.
108. That Theodore now acting in his new role Spallina had just anointed him over the phone,
     stated he was now to control the real estate and other properties to Petitioner's siblings
     and that he needed to make all these decisions and that according to Spallina he had
     many obligations and responsibilities but he would keep everyone up to speed on what
     they were doing.
109. That later that day when Petitioner, after looking up Florida law, challenged Spallina's
     claims that only because Theodore was the oldest living child was he capable of acting
     as a Personal Representative who could therefore take charge of the properties of the
     Estates and demanded Theodore again called Spallina to confirm.
110. That Theodore then claimed that Spallina had just informed him on the phone that under
     Shirley's 2008 Trust and Will, he was the Successor Trustee to Shirley's Estate and
     therefore he could act in these capacities Spallina was anointing him too in controlling
     the assets of both Shirley and Simon's estates.
111. That it was not learned until months later that TS, Spallina and Tescher were elected as
     the ONLY Personal Representatives and that no children had been chosen by Simon in
     the alleged 2012 Amended Trust they were operating under.
112. That Petitioner did not think the proposed 2012 Amended Trust could have been
     finalized prior to Simon's death, which e::~S~ Spallina and Tescher as Personal


                                             :;;· ~   .   :,t
     Representatives with these new powers, as this would have meant that Shirley's estate
     had been closed, which it had not been. Petitioner found it very strange that Theodore
     would be a Successor Trustee in the closed estate of Shirley and further able to now act
     as Personal Representative or Successor Trustee regarding the properties in Simon's
     estate under a moot document.
113. That Petitioner immediately asked to see the controlling documents they began
     operating under and was placated by Spallina not to worry they would be sent to him
     shortly and to not worry "he was a member of the Florida Bar and we could all trust him"
     and "he had the best of interest of the Beneficiaries in mind" and words to that effect.
114. That up until the day of Simon's death, Walker maintained keys and alarm codes to his
     home, as she had done for several years prior, however suddenly on the day Simon died
     she stated she no longer had the house keys, the alarm codes and did not have the right
     combination to open the personal safe of Simon, claiming Simon must have just changed
     the code on his safe days before his death and she had lost her keys.
115. That Walker had been residing in Shirley and Simon's home until several weeks before
     Simon's death and had moved from the home due to problems that had arisen with her
     and Puccio and Simon could no longer handle the additional stress. Where Walker had
     joined with Simon's other children and grandchildren in hating on Puccio and began
     claiming she was after his money, abusing him and more. That this feuding led to
     Walker and Simon attending therapy together and finally Walker moving out. Simon felt
     betrayed by Walker who he had considered like a daughter siding with his children and
     going against Puccio with such anger, yet he kept her employed and she showed up at
     his home almost daily until his death for work.
116. That due to the lost keys and codes and nobody living in the home now with Puccio
     having already fled, Theodore then asked Petitioner and Petitioner's family to stay at
     Simon's home for the next several days, as he did not have the keys, alarm or safe
     codes and he could not just leave the home open. Theodore claimed that he could not
     stay as all the other siblings were staying at his home and refused to stay in the home
     Puccio had destroyed. Theodore stated he feared Puccio could return to steal items and
     Petitioner agreed that leaving the house open and unalarmed seemed a bad idea and
     therefore he moved his family into the home for several days after Simon's passing.
117. That Petitioner's siblings, Pamela, Jill and Lisa stated that they would not stay in the
     home of Simon as it had been desecrated by Puccio living there and that they would not
     attend a funeral reception at the home if it were held there. They stated that all the other
     siblings had agreed and were planning on having the funeral reception at Theodore's
     home instead, as this was more convenient for them.
118. That Petitioner protested this funeral reception arrangement and wanted the reception
     instead at their father's home, so as all his elderly friends at the club he lived in could
     come by and be at their home for the last time       ere they had all shared memorable
     times with Simon and Shirley.
119. That Theodore claimed that after he spoke with Spallina again they decided that they
     could definitely not hold the funeral reception at Simon's home as it was too risky and
     someone could slip and fall or steal estate items. Where it suddenly appeared that they
     were best of friends, as Theodore was on the phone incessantly with Spallina and
     Tescher now.
120. That Theodore claimed that now that he was in charge of the properties, he and Spallina
     felt this exposed the estate and them personally to liabilities as Personal
     Representative/Successor Trustee to large risks from lawsuits and theft and other
     liabilities and that therefore there was no way to hold the reception at the home.
121. That Petitioner even offered Spallina and Theodore the option of having the attendees
     sign personal waivers for slip and fall before entering and having security at the home to
     prevent theft and stop and frisk attendees on the way out but all to no avail. That Spallina
     grew angry with Petitioner's renewed request to have the documents emailed to him
     showing all these powers granted and responsibilities and again Spallina stated he
     would send them shortly.
122. That several days after Simon's passing when the locks and alarm codes on both real
     estate properties in the Estates where changed, Theodore took possession of the new
     keys and codes and to the best of Petitioner's belief has since locked all Beneficiaries
     from the properties and seized possession of the two properties and all of their contents.
123. That Petitioner has tried to gain entry to the properties since that time but the guards at
     both residences refuse to allow him or his children entry on the orders of Theodore, no
     notices of possession where given to anyone by Theodore or TS, Spallina or Tescher.
124. That Petitioner further repeatedly requested Theodore to allow entry to get certain items
     for the children but each time since Simon's death he was not allowed back into the
     home or able to use any of the amenities on the properties he had been previously
     using. Theodore told Petitioner he would meet him at the properties several times over
     the last seven months but each time evaded Petitioner denying access.


V.    ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE ESTATE POST MORTEM AND MORE

125. That Walker claimed that when she went to Simon's home she grabbed anything estate
     planning looking that she could find from his home files, including trusts, wills, etc., as
     Theodore had requested her to do at the hospital.
126. That later when initially questioned by Petitioner about what the contents of the package
     Walker had given him were, Theodore claimed they were estate documents, including
     trusts, wills, some medical records and some insurance documents. Petitioner
     requested copies and inventory of the documents removed and an inventory of the
     personal effects of Simon he had taken from the hospital and Theodore stated he would
     have copies for everyone later that day. To this · ate Petitioner has never received the
       inventories or accounting for anything removed from the estate or Simon's personal
       affects taken from the hospital.
127.   That Petitioner learned later from Walker that some of the documents she removed from
       the estate included a contract Simon had made pertaining to Puccio and a check made
       out to her.
128.   That later upon questioning Theodore again about the contents of the package and if he
       had documents for Puccio, he initially denied he had any Puccio documents until
       Petitioner notified Theodore that Walker had told him of documents for Puccio that she
       had taken from the home and given to him and further that Walker claimed she had
       discussed them with him at the hospital.
129.   That suddenly Theodore acknowledged he was in possession of Puccio documents and
       claimed that he had just reviewed the Puccio documents with Pamela and David and the
       contract and did not appear valid and the check to Puccio was not signed and therefore
       she would not be paid despite Simon's desire or intent and this is why he claimed he had
       forgotten about it.
130.   That Petitioner then notified Theodore that Simon had personally informed Petitioner of a
       document and check for Puccio in the hospital on September 12, 2012 that he wanted
       her to have in the event anything happened to him in the hospital.
131.   That several days later, after failing to turn over the documents to Petitioner, Theodore
       stated he turned the documents and personal effects taken from the estate to TS,
       Tescher and Spallina.
132.   That when requesting copies of the Puccio documents from Spallina he stated Petitioner
       did not need them as the check was not signed and he and Theodore were not intending
       to pay Puccio, despite Simon's desire and intent. Petitioner still requested copies be
       sent to him by Spallina and Spallina stated he would send them when he got a chance.
133.   That for several months prior to and then for months after Simon's death Spallina told
       Petitioner repeatedly that he would get the Estates documents to him and the other
       Beneficiaries and Trustees but then in a family call with Spallina, he claimed suddenly
       and angrily in an "about face" that Petitioner was not entitled to any documents, as
       Petitioner was not a Beneficiary of either parent's estate and therefore had no rights to
       them and would send what he thought Petitioner needed when he needed them.
       Spallina then directed Petitioner to obtain what was in the public record at this Court
       instead. That Spallina misinforming Petitioner that he was not entitled to any
       documentation of the Estates, even as Trustee and Guardian for his children who under
       the alleged 2012 Amended Trust are Beneficiaries, evidences a lack of duty and care for
       the Beneficiaries and a breach of fiduciary responsibilities and more. As will be further
       evidenced herein Spallina now claims that Petitioner is a Beneficiary of the Estates, in
       yet another about face and documents exhibited an evidenced herein procured by TS
       show Petitioner always was.
134. That suddenly many key Estates documents essential to understanding the Estates and
     defining the distribution of assets are claimed to now be missing from Simon and
     Shirley's estate plans entirely and where no Attorneys at Law involved creating the
     documents appear to now have copies of these missing estate and insurance documents
     and more, as will be evidenced further herein.
135. That in the parking lot of the hospital Walker also exchanged what she thought was a gift
     she had for Petitioner and when Candice opened it on the way to Simon's it had 5-6
     large red pills inside. That when they contacted Walker on the way to Simon's to find out
     what these pills were and who they were for, she claimed that they were her pills, not
     Simon's and stated she gave Petitioner the wrong package and to throw them away.
136. That Petitioner on September 13, 2012 upon trying to log in to Simon's computer at his
     home to get his personal friends contact information to notify them of Simon's passing
     noticed that the hard drives on all of Simon's computers in his home were missing or
     scrubbed and Petitioner found this highly irregular. Theodore stated he would look into
     where they had gone and question several people who handled Simon's computers at
     his office and home if they knew anything. To this date those items appear to have been
     taken from the estate and never recovered.


VI.   MISSING LIFE INSURANCE TRUST AND LIFE INSURANCE POLICY OF
      SIMON


137. That on September 19, 2012 Petitioner met with Theodore and Spallina at the offices of
     TS and Pamela, David, Jill and Lisa were teleconferenced into the meeting from Chicago
     and we learned from Spallina and Tescher that documents were now missing in the
     Estates and they were pertinent documents to the distribution of major assets and
     controlling documents to the Estates.
138. That according to Spallina a Simon Bernstein Irrevocable Trust dated June 4, 1995
     ("llT") of Simon's was determined to be missing. The llT was initially created by Hopkins
     & Sutter ("Hopkins") law firm in Chicago, IL., which was later acquired by the law firm of
     Foley & Lardner ("Foley"). Exhibit 5 - Emails Regarding Lost llT and Settlement
     Agreement and Mutual Release ("SAMR").
139. That according to Spallina a Heritage Union Life Insurance Company insurance Policy
     No. 1009208 on Simon ("Heritage Policy") was also now missing from the Estates
     records. See Exhibit 6 - Emails Regarding Lost Heritage Policy. That the Heritage
     Policy is reinsured by Reassure American Life Insurance Company ("RALIC"), who has
     become involved in the insurance matters.
140. That Exhibit 6 shows that initially Spallina states that the beneficiaries are now being
     based on an "educated guess" at best, as no one knew who the beneficiaries were.
     Spallina then later states Simon told him who he beneficiaries were to be and yet
     Spallina fails to insure the benefits for the beneficiaries by documenting such and now as
     it factually is a guessing game, it exposes all potential interested parties to a variety of
     liabilities.
141. That Petitioner believes that the Heritage Policy and Simon's llT were part of VEBA Trust
     that was initially sold and implemented by Simon's insurance brokerage and trust
     companies and that these companies at that time are believed to have been managed by
     Pamela and her husband David B. Simon, Esq. and owned by Simon. That it should be
     noted that Simon was an expert in VEBA trusts for life insurance sales and created one
     of the first such plans in the nation.
142. That Simon's brokerage companies sold tens of millions of dollars of VEBA life insurance
     premiums over the years for large estates, all utilizing complicated estate trust vehicles,
     which were an inherent part of the VEBA plans designed by Simon. Almost all of
     Simon's high net worth clients' estate plans also involved complicated estate planning
     and trusts that Simon prepared and preserved as part of his business practice with
     Pamela and her husband David Simon. That Simon was considered one of the nation's
     smartest and wealthiest life insurance salesman and expert estate planner and his
     clients were all high net worth individuals and successful companies. In fact, Simon's
     products sold were estate planning tools he created (VEBA's, Premium Financing
     Arbitrages and others) that were adopted and used by thousands of clients, all extremely
     high net worth persons.
143. That it is beyond belief that Simon who was well versed in estate planning would create
     an estate plan and leave critical trusts and policies missing from the records on his very
     own estate and that Pamela and Theodore who maintained these records also would
     now be missing copies.
144. That Pamela and Simon are believed to be the life insurance agents on the now missing
     or suppressed Heritage Policy and where Pamela would be one of the General Agents
     for the carrier and may manage or own various of the trust companies involved with the
     VEBA's, with responsibilities for maintaining the llT records and insurance policy
     records.
145. That according to TS and Theodore in a September 19, 2012 meeting, it appeared that
     Proskauer Rose 2 and 3 ("Proskauer") may have received copies of the llT from Simon and


2
  That this Court should note that Proskauer has been sued by the Receiver in the now convicted Felon Ex-Sir Allen
Stanford of Stanford Financial Group ("Stanford") and where Simon had estate assets in Stanford further discussed herein.
That Thomson Reuter's reported the following @
http:ljnewsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/New York/News/2012/02 -
  February/Stanford Financial receiver sues law firms, lawyer/
"Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver for Stanford Financial Group, filed suit on Friday in federal court in
Washington against the law firm Proskauer Rose, the law firm Chadbourne & Parke, and Thomas Sjoblom.
The lawsuit alleges that while working at the firms, Sjoblom helped Stanford defraud more than 30,000 investors by
issuing $7 billion worth of bogus certificates of deposit. Sjoblom was a partner at Chadbourne & Parke from 2002 to 2006
and at Proskauer Rose from 2006 to 2009.
       Petitioner later learned that copies of the llT may have been transferred from
       Hopkins/Foley in or about 1999-2001 to Proskauer. That Theodore states that his
       "friends" at Proskauer would know and he and Spallina both stated they would check
       with their Proskauer "friends" to see if they had the missing documents. Petitioner found
       his brother's new "friends," which are Petitioner's current enemies to be strange
       bedfellows for him.
146.   That later according to Spallina, after checking with Proskauer's estate planning attorney
       Albert Gortz ("Gartz"}, Spallina stated that the Proskauer firm had "fired" Simon as an
       estate planning client, after Proskauer prepared and supposedly completed estate work
       for Simon in or about 1999-2001. Gartz now claims to have no records regarding the
       estate planning work of Proskauer's for Simon, including copies of the llT.
147.   That Petitioner contends that instead Simon fired Proskauer, as Petitioner did, after
       discovering in 1998-2002 that Proskauer was involved in the theft of extremely valuable
       Intellectual Properties and assets of companies owned by Simon and Petitioner, as will
       be fully discussed and evidenced further herein, leading to an ongoing RICO and
       Antitrust and Ongoing Federal Investigations and more.
148.   That Petitioner voided ALL/ANY estate planning work done by Proskauer in 1998-2002
       for his family and does so again herein, after firing Proskauer and filing a series of
       complaints against them, further discussed herein. Petitioner assumes Simon had done
       the same.
149.   That the Court should note here however, that despite Gortz's claim to Spallina that
       Proskauer has no estate documents in their possession, a Proskauer document turns up,
       allegedly executed by Simon in 2000, and it is a Will and Last Testament ("Will Exhibit").
       This W ill Exhibit turns up in the strangest of places, mysteriously appearing in this
       Court's record. The Will Exhibit is filed in the estate of Simon on October 10, 2012, as

The lawsuit also alleges that Stanford Financial lost at least $1.8 billion because Sjoblom, a 20-year veteran of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement division, thwarted a federal investigation into the company. The
lawsuit further alleges that the two law firms failed to properly supervise Sjoblom's work ... The three defendants named in
the lawsuit filed by Janvey also face at least six class-action lawsuits in Texas filed by Stanford Financial Group investors
who claim that Sjoblom conspired to defraud them and that the law firms failed to keep tabs on his activities.
The case is Janvey v. Proskauer Rose, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 12-CV-00155.
For the plaintiff: Guy Hohmann with Hohmann, Taube & Summers.
For the defendants: Not immediately available."
3
  That a lawsuit filed alleges that Proskauer directly Aided and Abetted Stanford and committed Conspiracy and more.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
RALPHS. JANVEY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR THE STANFORD RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE, AND THE
OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITIEE PLAINTIFFS,
vs.
PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP,
CHADBOURNE & PARKE, LLP,
AND THOMAS V. SJOBLOM,
DEFENDANTS.
htt :
     either a second Simon Will or as an "exhibit" to the 2012 Will of Simon done by TS. This
     alleged 2000 Will Exhibit was filed by TS on October 02, 2012 with this Court and the
     two wills that are now filed with this Court are wholly different and apparently unrelated?
150. That this "Will Exhibit" according to the Court docket is an "exhibit" and was done August
     15, 2000 and yet is never referenced in the 2012 Will of Simon as an exhibit, the
     document apparently is a notarized and signed Will and yet no law firm markings or
     reference numbers or account appear on the document pages. This "Will Exhibit" is
     inserted into the Court record for no apparent reason or rationale, which raises the
     question of why there is a need for two wills to be filed with this Court or why it was
     attached to the 2012 Will of Simon as an exhibit when not referenced therein and what
     document now rules? The issues with improper notarization of the 2012 Will of Simon
     and more will be discussed in greater detail further herein.
151. That Pamela, Theodore and Spallina have all claimed they now have no records of the
     missing llT or Heritage Policy, however, Spallina, Theodore and Pamela stated in a
     phone call with Petitioner's siblings that they had each been working on reinstating the
     Heritage Policy which had lapsed at some point months prior to Simon's passing and
     they had luckily reinstated it shortly before his death. How the Heritage Policy could have
     been reinstated without a clear beneficiary designation and without having copies of the
     policy and llT at that time, only a few months prior is unknown.
152. That after speaking to various employees of Simon's and others, Petitioner learned that
     the Heritage Policy and llT documents were witnessed to be contained in files
     maintained in both Simon's business office and his home office files.
153. That since his death, Simon's effects, including ALL documentation from his home and
     office have been controlled by Theodore and TS and there has been no accounting of
     any of the documents or other items of the Estates by the designated Personal
     Representatives/Successor Trustees acting under the alleged 2012 Amended Trust to
     the Beneficiaries, the Trustees for the Beneficiaries or Interested Parties and thus they
     have no way to access and search for the alleged missing documents or to find out if
     they have been removed and/or suppressed .
154. That upon Petitioner asking for copies of the Heritage Policy he has been refused by
     Spallina, Theodore and Pamela and even denied repeated requests for information
     regarding the point of contact at Heritage as exhibited and evidenced herein, with
     Pamela even claiming in the exhibited emails that Simon must have taken them from his
     office to his home and then basically with him to the grave as from the instant of his
     death they vanish into thin air.


VII.   INSURANCE PROCEED DISTRIBUTION
155. That Spallina with the aid of Theodore, Pamela and her husband David then concocted a
     scheme using a proposed "Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release" ("SAMR"), see
     Exhibit 7 - Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, drafted on or about December
     06, 2012 by an unknown Attorney at Law or Law Firm, as no law firm markings are again
     on the pages.
156. That Spallina claims to Petitioner and his siblings that this scheme will get Simon's
     children monies from the Estates, as they were no longer beneficiaries under the alleged
     2012 Amended Trust, as all five children would get nothing, as it would go to Simon's
     grandchildren as proposed in the May 12, 2012 meeting. Spallina apparently advising
     the children to act adversely to the grandchildren beneficiaries, their own children and
     get the money to themselves instead. Spallina states he is looking to get the children
     some of the monies outside the Estates, such as the insurance proceeds and IRA's, so
     as to get the children money versus their children who are the rightful beneficiaries. This
     makes one wonder exactly who Spallina is representing.
157. That the proposed SAMR scheme is to have the Heritage Policy insurance proceeds be
     distributed to the children outside of the estate and into the SAMR, under the claim that
     there was a lost trust and no beneficiary designation. Upon trying to move the monies in
     this fashion prior to agreement by anyone, it appears Heritage's reinsurer demanded an
     order from this Court with its blessing. However, on information and belief and limited
     legal knowledge, Petitioner believes the funds would flow into the estate of Simon, per
     instructions in his estate plans in the life insurance carry over clauses in both the 2008
     Trust of Simon and alleged 2012 Amended Trust.
158. That as proposed by Spallina, Theodore would be the Trustee of the SAMR scheme,
     claiming that under the llT, which they all claim is lost, he knew he was the "Successor
     Trustee."
159. That Spallina claimed that the SAMR was necessary to "avoid creditors" and "avert
     estates taxes" or words to that effect and get money out to the non-beneficiary children.
160. That Spallina states the SAMR will protect the Heritage Policy proceeds from liabilities
     and creditors, including liabilities that may result from a lawsuit filed against Theodore
     and Simon and their companies and later amended to add the Estates. That the lawsuit
     was filed by a one William E. Stansbury ("Stansbury") in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
     Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Palm Beach Country, FL., Case
     #502012CA013933XXXX ("Stansbury Lawsuit"). The Stansbury Lawsuit will be
     discussed in greater detail further herein.
161. That Spallina claimed the SAMR would keep the Heritage Policy proceeds from estate
     taxes too and if the SAMR was not done the proceeds would "escheat" to the state of
     Florida and not the estate of Simon, which Petitioner believes is not the case and that
     this threat and misinformation was used to intentionally scare the Beneficiaries and
     Interested Parties to hurry up and sign the SAMR or else face dire consequences and
                                           'f:,
     possible loss of the entire insura ~;. ~ hat Petitioner did not agree that estate



                                      '"li!li((', ,~:,1;:
       taxes could be evaded through a post mortem trust, especially where claims that Simon
       was the owner of the policy had been made by Spallina.
162.   That it appeared to Petitioner that claims were being made to the insurance carrier
       already to pay the benefits, so was wholly confounded as to why the insurance carrier
       would escheat the benefits as if a beneficiary could not be found and a timely claim
       made. The claim was made, there were beneficiaries represented and so it seemed
       ludicrous and bad legal advice based on Petitioner's limited understanding of these
       complex estate issues. In all Petitioner's years selling insurance he had never witnessed
       something even remotely similar to this situation.
163.   That it should be noted by this Court that the five children of Simon and Shirley are all
       Trustees of their children's trusts that were to be set up under the alleged 2012
       Amended Trust in order to transfer their inheritances to them. That per Spallina these
       trusts for the grandchildren under the alleged 2012 Amended Trust were never
       established and still have not yet been created and he would be creating them soon,
       again post mortem estate planning taking place.
164.   That Simon's children, Lisa, Jill and Petitioner are still Guardians of their children as they
       are all minors and where all of the children of Theodore and Pamela are no longer
       minors as they are all over 21 currently. Thus, if the proceeds were paid to Theodore
       and Pamela's children directly the monies would again skip over them as Simon and
       Shirley intended and they would receive nothing. Whereas the other children, Petitioner,
       Jill and Lisa would control the trusts for their children for many years to come, allowing
       them to distribute the investment income earned for their family's needs, until the
       children would be entitled to the money fully upon reaching the stated ages in the trusts.
165.   That Simon's children, especially Theodore and Pamela, under the SAMR appear in
       direct conflict with their children's interests over the distribution of the insurance
       proceeds and have in fact adverse interests. Where due to these conflicts and adverse
       interest with his own children, Petitioner felt the SAMR would need to be reviewed now
                                                                              1




       by several different Attorneys at Law representing each party sepa1        ately. One Attorney
       at Law for Petitioner's children, one for Petitioner as Trustee for his children's trusts
       under the alleged 2012 Amended Trust, one for Petitioner's new interests and each of
       the children and their children would have to retain similar counsel to parse these
       parental conflicts with their children, all due to Spallina's failure to properly protect the
       beneficiaries by adequately securing the Heritage Policy and llT beneficial interests
       through a legally documented paper trail. Petitioner claimed that he found it unethical to
       act adversely to his children and stated he would need to obtain independent counsel to
       review the SAMR scheme prior to signing. Petitioner questioned why the SAMR had to
       have the children of Simon as Beneficiaries and not the grandchildren but was told that
       Simon did not want it this way and that if he did that he would get nothing.
166.   That later in a teleconference with Petitioner, Spallina, Petitioner's siblings and others,
       Petitioner asked Spallina if this conversion_, , money from the intended grandchildren to

                                              ~~~':'
     the children through this new SAMR scheme created by the children naming themselves
     as the beneficiaries of the Heritage Policy posed conflicts of interest or could be
     construed as fraud and a violation of fiduciary duties. Petitioner found it highly irregular
     that acting as Trustees and Guardians for their children, that Theodore and Pamela
     would be creating and executing a document that could be construed as usurping funds
     from their children and putting those funds into their own pockets, in a highly irregular
     scheme.
167. That Spallina also appears to be acting with adverse interest to the grandchildren that he
     has fiduciary responsibilities to protect as Beneficiaries of the Estates by moving monies
     out of the Estates with this new concoction to their non-beneficiary parents. Petitioner
     found it strange how Spallina stated over and over again how he was going to work with
     Theodore and Pamela to get them some money somehow outside of the Estates plans,
     in direct opposition to the wishes, desires and legal documents he drafted for Simon and
     Shirley.
168. That Petitioner noted the conflicts and other problems to his siblings and urged them to
     seek counsel to make sure it could not be construed as a conflicted transaction that
     could be viewed as a fraudulent conveyance, violation of their fiduciary responsibilities
     and more. At this time it is not known if any of the other children have retained counsel
     for themselves and their children to review the SAMR for potential conflicts and legal
     validity. Yet, according to the exhibited Heritage Policy emails, apparently all of them
     appeared willing to have signed blindly at that point without counsel, without getting an
     approval from this Court, solely relying on the counsel of Spallina for all parties that this
     scheme was legit.
169. That the proposed SAMR that was drafted was not done apparently by any law firm
     willing to affix their firm's name to the SAMR, the only law firm listed in the document is
     that of David B. Simon, The Simon Law Firm, 303 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 210, Chicago, IL
     60601-5210, for serving process and notices, no other firm markings exist. However, the
     evidence exhibited herein shows Spallina selling the concept to all parties, over and over
     and involved in creating and negotiating the SAMR with insurance carriers and the
     children and authoring the SAMR concept and the language of the draft SAMR attached
     already herein .
170. That Petitioner objected to signing any such deal, even when claimed they would get a
     Court Order, until he could retain counsel that could decide if this were legal, a violation
     of his fiduciary duties to his children as Trustee of their trusts and if in fact if this SAMR
     could further be construed as fraud and more.
171. That in the Heritage Policy emails already exhibited herein, Spallina, after claiming it was
     initially an "educated guess" at best of whom the actual beneficiaries were, then reverses
     course in the attached emails, now suddenly remembering that Simon verbally told him
     the five children were supposed to be beneficiaries of the Heritage Policy proceeds and
     so the beneficiaries for the SAMR should abs lutely be the children and not the
     grandchildren. However, this is Prima Facie evidence that Spallina failed to take
     reasonable care to document this verbal statement supposedly made by Simon to him
     designating the Beneficiaries of a large estate asset in the estate plan and should have
     thus taken reasonable steps to protect those Beneficiaries.
172. That Spallina supposedly created the alleged 2012 Amended Trust by modifying the
     2008 trusts of Shirley and Simon just weeks earlier and in both cases appears to have
     failed to document and secure the proper papers for the Beneficiaries of the llT and
     Heritage Policy and failed to maintain the missing llT, the Heritage Policy and even the
     parole evidence offered of Simon's supposed statement and so wholly failed to protect
     his clients and their Beneficiaries.
173. That Spallina having no legal designation of beneficiaries to the Heritage Policy and the
     llT now exposes all the Beneficiaries and Interested Parties to a plethora of new
     liabilities and losses, such as, potential adverse tax consequences, adverse creditor
     issues, large legal and accounting bills to evaluate the problems resulting from this, loss
     of benefits to some parties and gain to other parties, all problems created by these
     fiduciary failures and more by the Personal Representatives.
174. That if true that Spallina knew these Beneficiary designations all along as the children
     and not the grandchildren, in advance of Simon's death and while amending the 2008
     Trust, then his prior statements that Petitioner was not a Beneficiary under the Estates
     and was not entitled to documents other than what was in the public record, nor entitled
     to ANY inheritance or assets of the Estates is then materially false, as he would have
     known Petitioner to be a Beneficiary of the Heritage Policy and llT, as Simon had told
     him prior to his according to the emails. Petitioner believes that this misinformation
     regarding him not being a Beneficiary was used to suppress documents from being
     released to Petitioner in the Estates, while alleged criminal activities were taking place in
     the creation of those documents post mortem, as exhibited and evidenced at length
     further herein.
175. That at minimum, even if Spallina claims he did not possess the llT or Heritage Policy for
     this major Estates asset, he should have stated in the alleged 2012 Amended Trust that
     he had this knowledge of who the beneficiaries were under the llT that he did not poses
     and stating in its absence the reason for the absence of the prevailing document
     designating the Beneficiaries and who they were, in spite of not having possession of the
     llT, reasonably ensuring the proper Beneficiaries rights to the proceeds.
176. That according to Spallina, Theodore and Pamela, as exhibited in the Heritage Emails,
     the owner of the Heritage Policy is Simon and not the llT, which at this time Petitioner
     cannot confirm, as the Heritage Policy and llT are alleged to be missing and other
     information appears secreted and suppressed by the Personal Representatives,
     Theodore, and apparently as exhibited, Pame a, all now claiming to have lost all copies
     and records of these items.
177. That the owner designation as Simon himself goes against proper estate planning of an
     irrevocable trust necessary to achieve the tax and creditor and other benefits of an
     irrevocable trust. Typically, and in almost all instances that Simon and Petitioner sold
     insurance together to clients for over 25 years, the owners and beneficiaries of the
     policies were the irrevocable trusts established, NOT the individual as owner or with any
     controlling interest. Having the insured act as the owner, who can then make policy and
     beneficiary changes, etc. would violate the very nature of the irrevocability of the trust
     being designed, which removes any control to make changes by the insured who
     irrevocably gives all rights up to gain the benefits. Why hire an Attorney at Law and pay
     them to prepare and implement a trust designed to fail?
178. That Spallina was confronted by Jill as to the legality of the SAMR in a family call
     attended by Petitioner's siblings, Tescher, Spallina and others, asking if her child could
     later sue her for actions under the SAMR due to the apparent conflicts of interest and
     possible fraud, Spallina claimed, "only if you later tell her what you did or she finds out"
     or words to that effect. Again, it appears that Spallina is again acting as counsel to the
     children in adverse interest to the grandchildren Beneficiaries and his client Simon and
     Shirley's wishes, desires, intent and legal documents, all in violation of law.
179. That again, as exhibited already herein, Spallina counsels and advises Petitioner to just
     sign the SAMR documents, that he did not need counsel as it would be a waste of
     money. That this claim to not seek counsel, as it is was a waste of money is also
     parroted by Theodore and Pamela as evidenced in the exhibited emails. Where
     Petitioner has been counseled that in fact each party to the SAMR and those affected by
     it would need separate and distinct counsel to represent each capacity they were being
     advised by Spallina to act under in the SAMR in order to parse the conflicts, if they could
     be.
180. That for example, in the SAMR proposal alone, Theodore acts without separate and
     distinct counsel in each of the following capacities,

     1.  as a Personal Representative/Successor Trustee in the Estates,
     ii. as a Trustee for his children's benefits under the alleged 2012 Amended Trust of
         Simon,
    iii. as the Trustee of the SAMR and
    iv. as an individual and direct benefactor of the SAMR proceeds in adverse interest to
         his children.

181. That for example, in the SAMR proposal alone, Spallina, Tescher and TS, act without
     separate and distinct counsel in each of the following capacities,

     i. as Personal Representatives under the      leged 2012 Amended Trust of Simon,
     ii. as Trustee of the SAMR, whereby Spallina claimed if Theodore was not elected by
         his siblings to be successor trustee of the SAMR, he would act in such capacity and
         open new trust accounts in his name to hold the proceeds and distribute them.
         Petitioner immediately objected to Theodore due to the apparent conflicts,
    iii. as Counsel to the Estates,
    iv. as Counsel to the Beneficiaries and other Interested Parties in the SAMR, except for
         Petitioner's children who have retained independent counsel and Petitioner who
         seeks currently to retain counsel individually,
     v. as counsel for the Beneficiaries under the alleged 2012 Amended Trust of Simon,
         and,
    vi. as Counsel for TS, Spallina and Tescher, as they appear without having retained
         independent counsel for any of the conflicting representations they have.

182. That Petitioner asks the Court if TS, Spallina and Tescher's liability and malpractice
     carrier would allow TS to act in these multiple and conflicting representations to all of
     these parties without independent counsel for themselves other than acting as their own
     counsel for their own acts in each capacity. Further where these conflicts appear to be
     self-dealing and cause liabilities to not only the Beneficiaries but the carrier.
183. That this suppression and loss of documents by TS, Spallina, Tescher, Theodore and
     Pamela could be construed as constructive fraud, a tort of deliberate omission or
     alteration of facts, in order to benefit themselves and others, just one example of a
     serious breach of fiduciary duty, which may lead to fines and repayment to beneficiaries
     for ALL losses. Courts can and should remove the Personal Representatives, Trustees
     and Successor Trustees for such breaches.
184. That this SAMR proposed and endorsed by Spallina clearly benefits Theodore and
     Pamela mainly, whom without such scheme would have no direct or indirect beneficial
     interest in the Heritage Policy under either the alleged 2012 Amended Trust or prior
     known trusts of Simon and Shirley, as both were wholly cut out from receiving anything
     in the Estates and with the SAMR they would now get a large chunk of the proceeds,
     approximately two fifths of the death benefit. This scheme would clearly reverse the
     desire and intent and estate documents of Simon and Shirley to exclude them from the
     remaining assets of the estate.
185. That this scheme of Spallina and others works adversely to the grandchildren
     Beneficiaries of the Estates under the alleged 2012 Amended Trust, giving Theodore
     and Pamela two fifths of the proceeds or more and where Spallina is acting as counsel
     against the Beneficiaries in favor of Theodore and Pamela and this appears to present
     numerous problems. If the alleged 2012 Amended Trust however is stricken, as
     Petitioner believes it should be by this Court, then the Beneficiaries of the proceeds
     would be only Petitioner, Jill and Lisa and the·r children.



                                                   ·:.··._i:,
186. That Spallina in several calls with Simon's children claimed the SAMR was a way to get
     the children monies out of the Estates and promised Theodore and Pamela that through
     the SAMR they concocted together, he could get them at least something from the
     Estates, along with perhaps the IRA monies. Where this legal advice is directly in
     conflict and to the detriment of the Beneficiaries of the Estates in either the 2008 or the
     alleged 2012 trust. Spallina's working in fact with Theodore and Pamela to get monies
     from the Estates to them personally, in opposite of the desires and intent of Shirley and
     Simon appeared wholly unethical and more to Petitioner.
187. That if Petitioner signed the SAMR and received one fifth of the Heritage Policy proceeds
     as proposed in the SAMR versus his children receiving three tenths of the proceeds, this
     would create a loss of inheritance to Petitioner's family of several hundred thousand
     dollars.
188. That Spallina on a phone call with Petitioner and a friend, Marc Garber, Esq. ("Garber"),
     made a threat to Petitioner in attempts to coerce Petitioner to sign the SAMR without
     seeking counsel and not cause problems whereby Petitioner either accepted the SAMR
     or Spallina would now somehow seize Petitioner's children's home.
189. That Spallina claimed later that some kind of mortgage existed on the home of
     Petitioner's children and that he could forgive such mortgage as Personal
     Representative but only if Petitioner accepted the SAMR. All the while as exhibited and
     evidenced herein urging Petitioner to do the SAMR without securing counsel or he would
     seize Petitioner's children's home and evict Petitioner, Candice and their children. That
     this threat on Petitioner to extort him to accept this SAMR scheme may be evidence of
     criminal activity by Spallina that harms the beneficiaries.
190. That after receiving advice from Garber, whom is not retained in these matters, that the
     SAMR could be construed as a violation of Petitioner's fiduciary responsibilities to his
     children and law, Petitioner then immediately retained the law firm of Tripp Scott and
     Attorneys at Law Christina Yates, Esq. ("Yates") and Douglas H. Reynolds, Esq.
     ("Reynolds"), from a referral from Garber of Flaster Greenberg P.C. ("Flaster") to
     evaluate the SAMR, demand documents for the Estates and other matters.


VIII. PETITIONER FORCED TO RETAIN COUNSEL DUE TO PERSONAL
      REPRESENTATIVES LACK OF DUTY AND CARE, BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY
      DUTIES AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REGARDING MISSING ESTATE
      ASSETS AND DOCUMENTS AND MORE

191. That Spallina grew angry at Petitioner's stated desire to retain independent counsel and
     threatened Petitioner that if he retained counsel that TS would not deal kindly with him
     forward and in an adversarial fashion. Spallina claimed it was a waste of time and the
     Estates monies to get counsel involved tha he approved the SAMR and would get a
     Court Order approving it now to satisfy the reinsurance carrier who did not go along with
     the initial scheme that did not entail an order from this Court.
192. That further, Spallina claimed that TS could represent all the parties without the need for
     either the children, the grandchildren Beneficiaries or their Trustees to retain
     independent counsel to review the SAMR. Petitioner felt extorted by these threats made
     by Spallina to either go along with the SAMR without counsel "or else" and further
     created the need for Petitioner to retain counsel.
193. That Petitioner at this time grew leery of the integrity of Spallina and Tescher and now
     had several reasons necessitating the need for counsel, including but not limited to,

      1.   securing estate documents, as now months had passed since Simon's death and TS
           had never sent ANY documents for Simon's estate and now over a year and half later
           had received no documents for Shirley's estate and Spallina had failed repeatedly on
           his promise to deliver them to Petitioner,
     ii.   to evaluate if what Petitioner was told by Spallina regarding not being a Beneficiary of
           either estate and therefore not entitled to any documents of the Estates was true,
           especially in light of the fact that Petitioner would have been entitled to the Estates
           documents even in his role as Guardian and Trustee for his children's trusts
    iii.   to evaluate the Estates assets,
    iv.    to evaluate the cause and effect and resolution of the missing llT and Heritage Policy
           and determine the liabilities resulting from such breaches of fiduciary duties as the
           documents are claimed missing by Spallina, Theodore and Pamela and this
           materially effects beneficiaries rights and interests negatively,
     v.    to evaluate the SAMR created in order to replace the missing llT and Heritage Policy
           for legal validity and possible fraud,
    v1.    to evaluate if Petitioner and Petitioner's children now needed separate counsel due to
           adverse interests causing conflicts and possible fiduciary violations,
    vii.   to evaluate the new tax and creditor implications of the new SAMR upon distribution
           of the Heritage Policy proceeds to the Beneficiaries,
   viii.   to evaluate if Creditors to the Estates could construe the SAMR as a Fraudulent
           Transfer to avoid creditors,
     ix.   to evaluate if the Personal Representatives and Successor Trustee were acting in
           good faith and following law,
     x.    to evaluate the legal opinions being rendered by Spallina regarding claims about the
           SAMR's tax and creditors protections this Post Mortem SAMR would gain, and
    xi.    to evaluate Spallina's newly disclosed evictio threat on behalf of the estate of Simon
           against Petitioner's children's home.




                                                        ·....
194. That Yates then attempted to schedule a call and meeting with Spallina to discuss the
     beneficial interests of Petitioner's children and Petitioner and secure the documentation
     of the Estates.
195. That Yates upon having her staff contact TS to schedule a meeting, told Petitioner that
     TS denied knowing Petitioner or of Petitioner's father's estate matters and Yates was
     surprised as she had already seen evidence that Spallina knew of Petitioner and
     Petitioner's father, including but not limited to, information regarding the specific
     meetings already held with Petitioner's family and Petitioner personally, as evidenced in
     the exhibits evidenced herein already.
196. That after several delays in speaking with Tripp Scott for several weeks through a series
     of tactical evasions, Spallina then stated he would not meet with Yates and cancelled a
     scheduled meeting. These aversions for months by TS ran up an enormous bill for Tripp
     Scott as will be exhibited and evidenced herein, just in trying to get the documents from
     them.
197. That when Yates contacted Petitioner they decided to now have Tripp Scott send letters
     to TS, demanding TS to respond and produce documents and records of the Estates.
     See Exhibit 10 - Tripp Scott Letters to Spallina for Documents and Spallina Reply.
198. That to the best of Petitioner's belief, currently Tripp Scott has only received PARTIAL
     documentation requested, with key documents to understanding the rights of the
     beneficiaries that were requested still never sent by TS to Tripp Scott or Petitioner and
     leaving Yates responding to Spallina she would attempt to piece together the documents
     of the Estates to make sense, as what he sent was a puzzle with many missing pieces.
     Again, major pieces of the puzzle requested were not sent and still have not been,
     leaving an incomplete picture of the Estates to the Beneficiaries and where the Estates
     documents and assets should be an open book to the Beneficiaries, instead we find non
     beneficiaries apparently having exclusive access with Spallina to the Estates and
     everyone else wholly in the dark.
199. That the problems and conflicts created with the llT and SAMR now forced Petitioner to
     now have to retain two separate Attorneys at Law, as Tripp Scott astutely identified a
     conflict of interest that precluded them from continuing representing both Petitioner and
     Petitioner's children together, as Petitioner and his children suddenly had adverse
     conflicting interests and would need separate and distinct counsel.
200. That after reviewing the new conflict of interest the SAMR posed, Tripp Scott decided
     they could only represent one party forward and it was decided that Tripp Scott would
     remain counsel for Petitioner's children. Therefore, Tripp Scott advised Petitioner that he
     would now need to retain individual legal counsel to represent his beneficial interests in
     the Estates that now conflicted with his children's beneficial interests. See Exhibit 11 -
     Tripp Scott Conflict Letter.
201. That it is now necessary for Petitioner to retain separate counsel in attempts to
     determine the effect on the Estates of thes problems identified already and how they
     will affect beneficial interests and whom the beneficiaries will ultimately be, a large legal
     undertaking for the Beneficiaries and Interested parties.
202. That once Tripp Scott and Petitioner received the partial documentation from Spallina
     and secured the Court records of the Estates that were in the public record, problems
     were instantly discovered, including alleged FRAUDULENT and FORGED documents,
     as defined further herein, all requiring steep new legal fees for Petitioner, Petitioner's
     children and Beneficiaries and Trustees to encumber for counsel to now analyze and
     determine the cause and effect of these newly discovered problems, all will be evidenced
     herein to be a direct result of TS, Tescher, Spallina, Theodore and Pamela.


IX.FORGED AND FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS
   FILED IN THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY IN THIS COURT BY TESCHER AND
   SPALLINA CONSTITUTING A FRAUD ON THIS COURT AND THE
   BENEFICIARIES AND MORE

203. That once Tripp Scott received this partial and incomplete set of documents for the
     Estates from TS, it immediately became clear that certain documents stood out as
     absolute Prima Facie evidence of Forgery and Fraud in documents submitted by estate
     counsel TS to this Court and now part of this Court's record.
204. That over a month after Simon's passing on October 24, 2012 TS filed with this Court
     several "WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION FOR
     DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT
     OF BENEFICIARY AND CONSENT TO DISCHARGE" ("Waiver(s)") necessary for the
     closing of the estate of Shirley Bernstein that had come from Simon, Theodore, Pamela,
     Lisa, Jill and Petitioner, all signed at different times and locations. Exhibit 12 - Waivers
     Not Notarized.
205. That in a Memorandum sent by this Court to TS on Nov 05, 2012, nearly two months
     after Simon's death, this Court then sent back all of these Waivers for notarization by
     each party, stating, "Receipts for assets from all of the specific beneficiaries were not
     notarized." Exhibit 13 - This Court's Memo to TS.
206. That on November 19, 2012 this Court received documents that appear similar to those
     sent back from TS but now, they were supposedly notarized on the prior date they were
     signed months earlier. The earlier documents signed did not have a notary but these
     somehow now did.
207. That in the November 19, 2012 Waivers sent back to this Court, the Waivers appear to
     have been altered from those sent back by this Court, to now have a notary public seal
     contained on them that is falsely witnessed on a time in the past. It would be impossible
     to have the documents notarized in the past · hout a time machine but that is what
       appears in the Court record. Exhibit 14 -Waivers Notarized on Dates Months in the
       Past.
208.   That the documents returned to this Court by TS in some instances, including
       Petitioner's, appears at first glance to have the exact same signatures and writings from
       the prior documents dated and signed months earlier without notary but now had been
       notarized in November 2012 on the dates in the past.
209.   That in the November 19, 2012 Waivers returned to the Court there was also a notarized
       Waiver from Simon, now notarized and signed. However, the Court did not send the
       document to have a notarized Waiver until two months after Simon's death and thereby
       raising the question of just how Simon rose from the grave to notarize a document
       in November 2012 when he passed away in September 2012, again Prima Facie
       evidence of Fraud and Forgery and more. Exhibit 15 - Simon's Waiver Signed Post
       Mortem.
210.   That all of the Waivers appear to have been further altered with scienter, whereby the
       un-notarized documents sent back by this Court appear also to have been allegedly
       criminally altered by shrinking the original un-notarized documents in size and then
       affixing a false notary seal upon them and then creating a merged and new document, of
       which the signatures were then forged onto the new documents to resemble the
       documents submitted to the Court, which were then sent by US Mail back to this Court.
       This appears to be how dead men sign and notarize documents in the past post mortem
       or Petitioner waits for a better explanation from this Court.
211.   That Petitioner's prior signed and not notarized Waiver also came back notarized,
       despite the fact that Petitioner has never met with TS and/or their notary to notarize any
       documents and therefore Petitioner's notarized document appears to be the same
       document sent back by the Court but now is also forged and altered to affix a fraudulent
       notarization and signature on documents dated and executed in the past.
212.   That on information and belief, Petitioner's sisters were also not in Florida during the
       time period of the documents being falsely notarized in November 2012 and therefore
       could not have signed personally in front of the notary on a date in the past either and
       thus it is alleged that their signatures and notary have been forged as well.
213.   That why would someone get a document back in November 2012 from the Court to
       notarize it and then recreate that document, using in Simon's example April 2012 as the
       signing date and then affix a notary seal on a document that was not originally notarized
       on the date in the past. Hard to understand other than when one of the parties you need
       to have notarize the document is dead for two months and you cannot get his signature
       or have him appear before a notary but you also cannot submit a document dated in the
       present as everyone would see a dead man signing and notarizing and find that hard to
       believe. So, it appears you take the document from April and you carefully craft it to look
       like the ones done in the past, replete with attempted forged signatures and shrink it to fit
       a notary and presto, you hope no one catche it.
214. That this altercation of the Waivers by manipulation and altercation of the prior
     documents shows that this was no notarization mistake or accident but rather a carefully
     crafted FORGERY by TS and their notaries, attempting to make the resubmitted
     documents look identical to the earlier documents signed and doing a wholly amateur job
     of FORGERY with so many inconsistencies existing in the two documents for each party
     that a child can spot the numerous defects in signatures and more.
215. That Petitioner alleges that these alleged document forgeries and signature forgeries
     and fraudulent notarizations re-submitted to this Court by TS, Tescher and Spallina
     constitute an instance of irrefutable Fraud on this Court and Fraud, Fraud on Petitioner's
     family and Fraud on the Beneficiaries, commissioned through alleged felony violations of
     law by the Personal Representatives, Trustees and Estate Counsel. Yes, it appears the
     fraudulent documents were sent via mail or wire to the Court and others.
216. That Petitioner was never notified by TS that documents were sent back from the Court
     and needed to be notarized until recovering them from the Court, perhaps one of the
     reasons TS and others are hiding documents essential to the Estates.
217. That on January 23, 2013 after reviewing the Forged and Fraudulent documents with
     Tripp Scott and their Notary Public expert at their offices, Tripp Scott prepared and
     Petitioner signed a REVOCATION OF: WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS
     OF PETITION FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
     DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND CONSENT TO DISCHARGE
     ("Revocation") revoking the alleged Fraudulent and Forged Waiver that was submitted to
     this Court on Petitioner's behalf and without Petitioner's knowledge or consent by TS.
     Exhibit 16 - Petitioner Revocation of Waiver.
218. That Petitioner is unclear as to whether Tripp Scott filed this Revocation on behalf of
     Petitioner with this Court prior to having to separate representations as described further
     herein due to conflict between Petitioner and his children. That if Tripp Scott did not file
     such Revocation with this Court that such Revocation attached herein may now also be
     construed to be filed with this Court through submission herein.
219. That Petitioner's Revocation herein may cause this Court to reopen and re-administer
     the Estate of Shirley again free of such Fraudulent and Forged documents and the
     effects of them.
220. That Petitioner claims that Simon's Waiver should also be stricken from the record in
     Shirley's estate, as it too is a Fraudulent and Forged document, as it appears impossible
     that Simon could have signed and notarized a document post mortem and again his
     document was shrunk to fit the notary public seal and his signature appears to have
     been forged.
221. That Petitioner states that these alleged Forged and Fraudulent documents are Prima
     Facie evidence of the alleged criminal activity in the estate of Shirley should be reported
     by this Court to all appropriate criminal authorities for immediate investigation. If this
     Court does not intend on notifying the appro riate authorities on its own authority, which
      may constitute Misprision of a Felony, including notifying the Governor of the State of
      Florida for the alleged illegal and improper notarizations and reporting the alleged
      Forgery and Fraud on the Court to criminal authorities, then Petitioner requests the Court
      notify him in writing that the Court is not intending on reporting the alleged criminal
      activity and tendering the evidences exhibited herein of such alleged criminal acts to the
      authorities and Petitioner will contact these authorities directly. That Petitioner feels that
      it is a duty of this Court to report such alleged criminal activities and exhibited Prima
      Facie evidence, especially where the alleged crimes are alleged committed by another
      Attorney at Law acting as an Officer of this Court, as is the case with TS, Spallina and
      Tescher.


X.      INCOMPLETE NOTARIZATION IN THE ALLEGED 2012 AMENDED TRUST
        OF SIMON AND MORE


222. That upon reviewing the documents in the estate of Simon sent by TS to Tripp Scott and
     those gathered by Petitioner from this Court, several more problems arose with the
     validity and legality of estate and other documents prepared and filed by TS with this
     Court, the Beneficiaries and Interested Parties, including the fact that the alleged 2012
     Amended Trust of Simon dated July 25, 2012, less than two months before Simon's
     death on September 13, 2012, also is alleged deficient in the notarization. 4 See Exhibit
     17 - Signature Pages of Alleged 2012 Amended Trust.
223. That in the alleged 2012 Amended Trust neither the identification that Simon appeared
     or was known on that date to the notary was indicated, so that Simon neither appeared
     before the notary or was known to the notary at the time of notarization of the alleged
     2012 Amended Trust that Spallina and others have gained powers over the estates
     using. The failed notarization of this document making it an alleged nullified document
     that cannot be relied upon legally and due to the lack of care and duty by TS to properly
     notarize these documents, a further Breach of Fiduciary Duties by TS and further
     possible evidence of Notary Public Fraud by TS and others, all beneficiaries have further
     liabilities and burdens.
224. That the alleged 2012 Amended Trust of Simon also appears improperly witnessed by
     Spallina who acts as one of the two Witnesses to the alleged 2012 Amended Trust, a

4
  http://notarypublic-florida .com/liabilitv.htm
A recent court decision should be of special interest to Florida notaries and their employers. In Ameriseal of North East
Florida, Inc. v. Leiffer (673 So. 2d 68 [Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1996]), the Court ruled that a notary public and the law firm that
employs her may be held liable for damages resulting from an improper notarization ... Because notaries are appointed by
the Governor, it is the responsibility of the Governor's Office to investigate allegations of misconduct by notaries. The
Notary Section investigates hundreds of complaints each year and takes disciplinary action against those notaries found to
have been negligent in their duties. Most complaints involve bu ness deals gone awry, persons involved in legal disputes,
or friends who asked the notary for a special favor.
     document Spallina prepared as Counsel and whereby under the alleged 2012 Amended
     Trust TS is also granting TS, Tescher and Spallina powers to act in the capacities they
     have acted in since day one after Simon's death and these same documents also gave
     them interests in the Estates.
225. That since TS and Spallina have refused to send the original 2008 Trust of Simon to
     Tripp Scott or Petitioner after repeated requests, it remains unclear as to who the
     Personal Representatives of Simon's estate were designated to be in the 2008 Trust that
     TS was changing in the alleged 2012 Amended Trust to make TS, Tescher and Spallina
     the new Personal Representatives, again a guessing game.
226. That these new problems with notarizations in the estate documents of now Simon
     combined with the overwhelming Prima Facie evidence of alleged Forged and
     Fraudulent documents in the estate of Shirley, now begets the question as to just what
     the bigger Fraud is that is attempting to be pulled off on this Court, the Beneficiaries and
     Interested parties that would cause Fraudulent, Forged and incomplete documents to be
     submitted to this Court and others by TS, Spallina and Tescher in now both Simon and
     Shirley's estate.
227. That Petitioner states that these alleged Forged and Fraudulent documents are Prima
     Facie evidence of the alleged criminal activity in the estate of Simon should be reported
     by this Court to all appropriate criminal authorities for immediate investigation. If this
     Court does not intend on notifying the appropriate authorities on its own authority, which
     may constitute a Misprision of a Felony, including notifying the Governor of the State of
     Florida for the alleged illegal and improper notarizations as required by law and reporting
     the alleged Forgery and Fraud on the Court to criminal authorities, then Petitioner
     requests the Court notify him in writing that the Court is not intending on reporting the
     alleged criminal activity and tendering the evidences exhibited herein of such alleged
     criminal acts to the authorities and Petitioner will contact these authorities directly and
     immediately. That Petitioner feels that it is a duty of this Court to report such alleged
     criminal activities with the exhibited Prima Facie evidence, especially where the alleged
     crimes are alleged committed by another Attorney at Law acting as an Officer of this
     Court, as is the case with TS, Spallina and Tescher.


XI.    INCOMPLETE NOTARIZATION IN THE 2012 WILL OF SIMON AND MORE


228. That the 2012 Last Will and Testament of Simon filed with this Court dated July 25,
     2012, forty-nine days before Simon's death on September 13, 2012 is also deficient in
     the notarization, see Exhibit 18 - Signature Pages of 2012 Will of Simon, as again
     neither the identification that Simon appeared or was known on that date to the notary
     was indicated, so that Simon neither appeared before the notary or was known to the
                                           i l!J-f'<J:2012 Amended Trust that Spallina and
      notary at the time of notarization oH {



                                             ~    ..
       others have gained powers over the estates using. The failed notarization of this 2012
       Will making it an alleged nullified document that cannot be relied upon legally and due to
       the lack of care and duty by TS to properly notarize these documents, a further Breach of
       Fiduciary Duties by TS and further possible evidence of Notary Public Fraud by TS and
       others, all beneficiaries have further liabilities and burdens.
229.   That additionally there is apparently an unidentified exhibit to the 2012 Will of Simon filed
       with the Court on October 02, 2012 by TS, which appears to be a previous Will of Simon
       signed on August 15, 2000, the Will Exhibit. This Will Exhibit is never referenced as an
       exhibit in the 2012 Will of Simon that was prepared by TS and purportedly signed by
       Simon on July 25, 2012 and so what exactly it is an exhibit for is unknown. See Exhibit
       19 - Relevant Signature Pages of Will Exhibit.
230.   That the 2012 Will of Simon was recorded as a nine page document with this Court on
       October 05, 2012. The 2000 Will Exhibit to the 2012 Will of Simon was filed with the
       Court October 10, 2012 and docketed as an "exhibit" but no indication to what and
       appears to be an old Last Will and Testament prepared and executed by Proskauer on
       August 15, 2000. As the Will Exhibit is never referenced in the Will of Simon that was
       prepared by TS in 2012, the questions of if Simon knew this Will Exhibit would be affixed
       to his Will or would somehow become part of the estate documents filed with this Court
       and what purpose it would serve or rights it would convey is unknown, as this 2000 Will
       was voided in the 2012 Will prepared by TS.
231.   That as of the date of filing, it remains unclear to Petitioner why the Will Exhibit has been
       entered and now part of this Court's record and why there are now two Last Will and
       Testaments in the Estate of Simon filed by TS. That again, the question of what part of a
       larger scheme is at play here is raised and why is the involvement of Proskauer brought
       into such a scheme through a 2000 Will Exhibit that is over a decade old and voided???
       The relation of Proskauer to Simon and Petitioner has a long and sordid history and will
       be further discussed and defined herein and in exhibit.
232.   That in contrast the Will of Shirley filed with this Court and done in May of 2008 by TS
       appears to be notarized correctly and the notary properly underlines that Shirley is
       "personally known to me" on the date of notarization. However the document still suffers
       from Spallina acting as Counsel and Witness in the document in conflict, despite that no
       interests or powers appear to be transferred in the Will of Shirley to TS through the
       execution of the Will, although now all documents become questionable due to the
       alleged forgeries and fraud in the other documents.


XII.    FAILURE BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES TO INFORM AND DEFEND
        BENEFICIARIES IN CLAIMS AGAINST TH ESTATE VIOLATING FIDUCIARY
        RESPONSIBILITIES AND MORE
233. That William E. Stansbury ("Stansbury") filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the
     Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Palm Beach Country, FL., Case#
     502012CA013933XXXX for USO $2,500,000.00 on July 30, 2012, just five days after
     Simon supposedly signs the alleged 2012 Amended Trust and the 2012 Will of Simon.
234. That Stansbury first sues in his original complaint the following Defendants,

      i.   Ted S. Bernstein,
     ii.   Simon Bernstein,
    iii.   LIC Holdings Inc. and
    iv.    Arbitrage International Management LLC fka Arbitrage International Holdings LLC.

235. That Spallina advises Petitioner and his siblings that this was a business deal of
     Theodore's and that Theodore was taking care of the lawsuit with counsel and Stansbury
     and that the lawsuit would not become a problem to the estate, as Theodore would be
     settling it shortly for no more than a couple thousand dollars, Spallina opining that
     Stansbury had no real claims.
236. That Theodore and Spallina have not been noticing properly the Beneficiaries and other
     interested parties of the status of the Stansbury lawsuit or the liabilities that may result to
     the estate as required by law.
237. That as of this date the lawsuit has not settled and upon doing his own due diligence
     Petitioner discovered the Stansbury complaint had been amended by Stansbury on
     February 14, 2012, obviously having not been settled by Theodore for a couple thousand
     dollars.
238. That Stansbury amends his original complaint to now sue Defendants,

       i. Ted S. Bernstein,
     ii. Donald Tescher and Robert Spallina as,
           a. Co-Personal Representatives of the estate of Simon L. Bernstein,
           b. Co-Trustees of the Shirley Bernstein Trust Agreement dated May 20, 2008,
    iii. LIC Holdings Inc., ("LIC") 5
    iv. Arbitrage International Management LLC fka Arbitrage International Holdings LLC,
          and
     v. Bernstein Family Realty LLC.

239. That Stansbury claims in the amended complaint that,

       i. LIC retained commissions in 2008 that amounted to USO $13,442,549.00,
      ii. Simon Bernstein was paid USO $3, 756,229.00 in 2008, and
     iii. Theodore was paid USO $5,225,825.00 in 2008.
240. That Stansbury lowers the amount of the lawsuit from USO $2,500,000.00 to USO
     $1,500,000.00 in the amended complaint.
241. That Stansbury adds three new specific real estate properties to the lawsuit in the
     amended complaint in attempts to put liens on them, including Petitioner's children's
     home which was purchased for approximately USO $360,000.00 and yet fails to include
     Theodore's home purchased for approximately USO $4,400,000.00. Instead, Stansbury
     lists a home of Theodore that had sold and that he no longer lives in. On information
     and belief, Stansbury knew Theodore no longer lived in or owned the home he sued and
     intentionally left off Theodore's home that he lives in. Theodore is supposedly the
     defendant in the lawsuit that Stansbury claims did most of the egregious acts against
     him, including several that appear to be criminal, including allegations of check forgery
     and signature forgery, conversion of funds and more.
242. That Petitioner, on information and belief, has recently learned that Stansbury may be in
     fact colluding with Theodore, Spallina, GT and Ransom Jones ("Jones") an employee of
     UC, to target assets of the Estates through the lawsuit by adding these new defendants
     and assets in the amended complaint. Whereby they have been allegedly conspiring
     together with intent to defraud the Estates of assets which would constitute abuse of
     process, Fraud on that Court, theft and more. Perhaps why Stansbury is now targeting
     the real estate held in the Estates where Theodore has no beneficial interests in the
     properties and this legal process abuse scheme and Fraud on that court would provide a
     way for Theodore and Stansbury to take interests from the Estates through such lawsuit,
     working together and to relieve Theodore from his personal financial obligations to
     Stansbury for the alleged check forgery and other damages he may owe.
243. That prior to Stansbury's amended complaint, Petitioner in a teleconference with
     Spallina, Yates and his siblings asked Theodore and Spallina who was representing the
     various parties in the lawsuit and were the Estates being represented by independent
     counsel or TS. That TS stated the estate did not yet have counsel in the lawsuit
     despite the lawsuit being filed months earlier on July 30, 2012 and despite his
     prior opines on the lawsuit to not worry to the children of Simon it would be
     handled by Theodore.
244. That Theodore in that teleconference stated that his personal counsel and LIC's counsel
     was GT6 and Petitioner reminded Theodore that GT would have conflicts with Petitioner
     and Simon's Estate that are more fully described further herein.

6
 That GT is also alleged involved in the Stanford Money Laundering Operation, "Stanford receiver sues law firms
Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams" American City Business Journals, Nov 17, 2012, 10:15am CST UPDATED : Mar
20, 2013, 9:18am CDT
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/11/16/stanford-receiver-sues-law-firms.html?page=all
and
"R. Allen Stanford and Miami-based Greenberg Traurig: why is· always Greenberg Traurig?"by Eye on Miami Sunday, July
05,2009
245. That shortly after Petitioner reminded Theodore of the GT conflicts with certain of the
      Estates assets, including the Stanford investment and trust accounts, Simon and
      Petitioner, that Stansbury suddenly, months after filing the lawsuit, files a motion to
      remove GT as counsel representing Theodore, due to a conflict of interest he suddenly
      remembers he has with GT.
246 . That GT then recently withdraws as counsel in the lawsuit claiming to that court that GT
      was conflicted with the "Defendant's," their client Theodore, when the conflict allegedly is
      with the Plaintiff Stansbury instead, as described in Stansbury's motion to dismiss GT as
      counsel in that lawsuit?
247. That after the Stansbury amended complaint was served, TS finally retained counsel for
      the Stansbury lawsuit, TS and Mark R. Manceri, P.A. ("MM"), as Petitioner and others
      were worried that a default could be issued with no counsel providing estate
      representation.
248. That the lack of providing counsel for the estate of Simon by TS in the lawsuit until
      months later when questioned by Petitioner and after the filing of the Stansbury
      amended complaint may have been intentional and used to secure a default against the
      real estate and other assets of Simon and Shirley's estates by TS, Spallina, Tescher,
      GT, Theodore and Ranson Jones, all working together in concert with Stansbury to bleed
      the estate of monies and properties and before any of the Beneficiaries were aware of
      what happened, as no notices and information have been provided to the Beneficiaries
      as proscribed by Florida law regarding this creditor and the lawsuit against the Estates
      by TS, Spallina, Tescher or Theodore.


XIII. THREATENED FORECLOSURE ON SIMON'S GRANDCHILDREN'S HOME BY
       SIMON'S ESTATE POST MORTEM


249. That in 2008 Petitioner was moving to a home in Eureka, California, when Shirley's
     health declined and Petitioner asked Shirley if she wanted them to move instead to
     Florida to be with her and Simon with the grandchildren .
250. That Shirley then told them to leave their home in California and she would take care of
     getting a house and decorating it and so not to even bring their furnishings. Shirley and
     Simon then purchased and fully remodeled the entire home for Petitioner's children with
     funds from their grandchildren's trust accounts and threw a surprise party with all their
     friends so that as Petitioner's family pulled in from the long drive from California what a
     surprise was waiting.
251. That Simon and Shirley purchased the house using funds from the Petitioner's children's
     2006 trust accounts with Stanford, whereby Petitioner and his wife Candice signed a
       transfer of funds release letter to Stanford Trust Company to approve such transfer of
       funds for the full amount of the purchase price of the home as Guardians. See Exhibit
       20 - Stanford Transfer of Funds Release Letter
252.   That Yates contacted Petitioner and informed him after speaking with Spallina that
       Spallina had claimed that Petitioner should take the SAMR deal quickly as there was an
       impending foreclosure on Petitioner's home he would need the funds for and the
       insurance funds he would receive directly under the SAMR would be taken to pay off the
       mortgage debt and stave off foreclosure.
253.   That Petitioner shortly after learning of this impending foreclosure by Yates from an
       unknown entity, shortly thereafter on a conference call with Spallina, Yates, Petitioner
       and his siblings, Petitioner asked Spallina who the bank was that was instituting
       foreclosure on the children's home. At first Spallina claimed he did not know off hand, he
       then found the file and stated that it was Simon who would be foreclosing on his
       Grandchildren's home. That Spallina then referred to a Balloon Mortgage, see Exhibit
       21, and, a Promissory Note, see Exhibit 22, both that TS and Spallina apparently
       prepared and had executed for Simon, in efforts to protect Petitioner and his family but
       as this Court will see evidenced herein that this was not to eventually force an eviction
       on them at his death, in fact, the exact opposite was to happen. This threatened
       foreclosure by Spallina would be wholly inconsistent with the desires and intent of Simon
       and Shirley and the elaborate steps they took to protect Petitioner and his family while
       alive through complicated estate plans. As Petitioner will evidence further herein, his life,
       the lives of his immediate family and the lives of Simon and Shirley's extended families
       are all in grave danger and steps were taken to try and protect Petitioner and his
       children, not to harm them.
254.   That the Court should note here that the Balloon Mortgage docketed with Palm Beach
       County Court, Clerk & Comptroller Office consisted of three pages. That the Court
       should note that the Exhibit A referenced in the Balloon Mortgage does not appear to be
       docketed with that Balloon Mortgage as Exhibit A, and in fact, no Exhibit A is part of the
       court record of the Balloon Mortgage.
255.   That Spallina transmitted a Promissory Note to Yates with the Balloon Mortgage and
       where the Promissory Note is not docketed with the Palm Beach County Clerk and is not
       part of the certified copy of the Balloon Mortgage obtained by Petitioner. Spallina
       claimed that these two documents now gave him the power to foreclose on Simon's
       grandchildren's home and evict them from their home unless they took the SAMR deal.
256.   That the promissory note may also have a deficient notarization.
257.   That up until the point that Spallina claimed to Yates that he was holding off an
       impending foreclosure on Petitioner's children's home, Petitioner had thought his
       children's home was owned free and clear of any bank mortgages by his children.
258.   That Simon had told Petitioner that the house was fully paid for, other than a small carry
       over loan owed to the prior home owner he         chased it from, Walter Sahm ("Sahm").
      Simon worked the home purchase into a deal whereby he purchased Sahm's insurance
      business from him and paid cash for the home and Simon had even thrown Sahm, his
      friend, a retirement party upon closing of their deal. Sahm with the sale of his business
      and home to Simon moved into a luxury retirement home with his spouse.
259. That Simon and Shirley were excited to have purchased Sahm's home as it directly
      borders Saint Andrews school and upon closing on the home they contacted Petitioner
      and Candice to tell them they had purchased the perfect home for the children that
      bordered Saint Andrew's school.
260. That Simon and Shirley stated they had set aside funds for the children to attend Saint
      Andrew's throughout their lower, middle and high school years. How cool, their
      grandchildren could just walk out their backyard and be at school and it was a mile or
      two from their Bubbie and Zaidas home to top it off.
261 . That the loan to Sahm was also thought by Petitioner to be entirely paid off, as
      approximately USO $4,000.00 was being deducted from an annual Advancement of
      Inheritance Agreement ("AIA") of USO $100,000.00, see Exhibit 23 -Advanced
      Inheritance Agreement, contracted between Simon and Shirley and Petitioner and
      Candice and funded monthly since August 15, 2007, less deductions taken for payment
      of the loan to Walt Sahm home loan since approximately August 2008.
262. That the AIA was providing all expenses for Petitioner's family and the home, due to
      extraneous circumstances precluding Petitioner from earning income over the last 13
      years, involving Car Bombings and Death Threats, as more fully discussed and
      evidenced further herein.
263. That Simon had conveyed to Petitioner that he had secured the house from retaliation by
      defendants in a RICO & Antitrust Lawsuit and Ongoing State, Federal and International
      investigations, initiated by Petitioner. That Simon claimed he placed some form of
      second on the house to himself to protect the home. Simon further stated that he had
      wound the home up further into a company he started with the grandchildren as owners.
264. That Simon took all of these elaborate steps to protect Petitioner and his family as they
      were in grave danger, steps which TS and Spallina were supposedly contracted as
      counsel to protect and continue to protect after Simon and Shirley's deaths and where it
      now appears that TS, Spallina and Tescher are moving against Simon's desires and
      deconstructing the planning Simon and Shirley did for Petitioner's family, in concert with
      other Defendants in the RICO, to leave Petitioner and his family on the street soon, a
      plan which will be more fully discussed and defined herein.
265. That Spallina claims now that there is a total loan on the home of USO $475 ,000.00 with
      USO $365,000.00 as a balloon mortgage to Simon's estate due and additionally the full
      amount of Sahm's note of USO $110,000.00 also due, which Sahm's appears to be
      recently extended and due in full now in 2014. See Exhibit 24 -Walter Sahm Mortgage,
      Promissory Note, Warranty Deed and Amended Mortgage and Promissory. This makes
     the total loan USO $110,000.00 highe;,,~t .actual purchase price of the home USO


                                             ·~ ·:
     $365,000.00. All attempts to get information from Spallina regarding the loans and
     payments, etc. has been suppressed.


XIV. VANISHING ESTATE ITEMS AND ASSETS

266. That according to Patricia Fitzmaurice, L.C.S.W., P.A., ("Fitzmaurice") Simon's therapist,
     in a session with Petitioner and Candice informed them that Simon had conveyed to her
     that his net worth was approximately USO $30,000,000.00 shortly before his death.
267. That according to Puccio, Simon had told her that the estate was worth between USO
     $20,000,000.00 to $30,000,000.00 at various times, with monies already put away and
     protected for Petitioner and his family for school, home and other items.
268. That after the May 12, 2012 estate meeting with Spallina, Tescher, Simon and his
     children, Simon claimed to Petitioner that each grandchild would receive, for example, a
     minimum USO $2,000,000.00 if he died that day and that at an estimated 8% interest it
     would cover the family's costs of living and more. For the ten grandchildren this would
     put the total estate at a minimum value of USO $20,000,000.00.
269. That later that week Simon clarified that Petitioner's family, even at the minimum amount
     used for example would get USO $6,000,000.00 and would be set up fine with good
     investments made and with school funds for the grandchildren paid for throughout
     college already set aside. Simon stated he wanted Petitioner to secret this information
     from family members as he was very worried about Theodore and Pamela and their
     spouses knowing exactly what his net worth was and why on the phone call on May 12,
     2012 he did not state any numbers with them.
270. That prior to her death Shirley and Simon had taken Candice and Petitioner to dinner to
     tell them that the almost all of the Stanford monies had been unfrozen and they had
     received almost all of their investment monies back, less a small percentage of their
     account value approximately 2-3 million dollars that were in some form of risky CD's of
     Stanford's7 that could be lost. Upon confirming they had received their investment
     monies back they immediately funded college plans for Petitioner's three children in
     entirety and told Petitioner that Walker had completed funding for such. Walker, later on
     staying at Petitioner's home overnight, was excited and told Petitioner and Candice they
     had nothing to worry about for their children with the home paid off and her having just
     taken care of funding their college plans.
271. That recently settlements have been made regarding portions of the Stanford CD's for
     victims and due to the inability to get information from the Personal Representatives
     regarding Simon's claims, the Beneficiaries have no way of knowing what has been
     recovered to date and what are the remaining mounts pending under the litigations.
     Despite request for this information the Personal Representatives have again failed to
     produce documents regarding these assets.
272. That on information and belief, Theodore is attempting to sell or sold a real estate
     property held in the Estates, with no notice to Beneficiaries and where Petitioner and
     Petitioner's children counsel has not been noticed even after the sale and where
     Petitioner and Petitioner's counsel expressly told Spallina and Theodore to not make any
     transactions of properties without first notifying them properly as required under law.

       1. Loans Against Estate Assets and No Accounting by Personal Representatives

273. That initially Spallina stated the two homes in the Estates were free and clear of
     encumbrances and then several months later revealed that there was an unknown USO
     $500,000.00 line of credit on the home at Saint Andrews Country Club at 7020 Lions
     Head Lane, Boca Raton, FL 33496 that was due in full.
274. That when Tripp Scott and Petitioner requested copies of the line of credit, including all
     withdrawals, dates of transactions and amounts, they were met with hostile resistance
     and still have not received the information months later from TS.
275. That Spallina initially claimed the Heritage Policy was for USO $2,000,000.00 and
     months later claimed that suddenly there was a USO $400,000.00 loan against the
     Heritage Policy leaving a net of approximately $1,600,000.00.
276. That when Tripp Scott and Petitioner requested the information regarding the Heritage
     Policy loans, including transaction dates and amounts, again they were met with hostile
     resistance by Spallina and still have not received the loan information or the policy
     information .
277. That Spallina initially claimed that had the Heritage Policy and would send it to Petitioner
     to read and review before signing the SAMR and then later claimed TS did not now nor
     ever have a copy as already evidenced in the exhibited letters herein.
278. That Pamela later stated in a conference call with Spallina, Yates and Petitioner's
     siblings that initially she sent Spallina a copy of the Heritage Policy and then Spallina
     asked that she send him another copy as he had lost his and Pamela agreed to do so.
     That Pamela then sent an email, Exhibit 25 - Pamela Email's Regarding Lost Heritage
     Policy, stating she no longer had the Heritage Policy and Simon must have taken it with
     him.

       2. Missing Investment Accounts

     Private Banking Investment Accounts (Stanford JP Morgan, Oppenheimer and Others)



                                                        . i:
279. That Simon had an estimated tens of millions of dollars in Stanford Group Company
     investment accounts handled by Private Banking representative, Christopher R. Prindle
     who is now with J.P. Morgan Private Bank.
280. That Simon was a victim of the Stanford scandal and his accounts were frozen in total by
     the SEC and Federal Court for several weeks. Allen Stanford was arrested and a Ponzi
     (more aptly Money Laundering) scheme was discovered. Again the Court should note
     that Proskauer and GT are being sued by the Federal Court Appointed Receiver in the
     Stanford SEC/FBI case for Conspiracy, Aiding and Abetting and more as actually
     participating in architecting and enabling the crimes.
281. That since almost all of Simon's investments were in blue chips and other low risk
     investments in Stanford, these monies were released back to Simon. That Simon told
     Petitioner that he lost a small percentage of his money in risky CD's he had purchased
     and did not think he would recover much but had filed several lawsuits later to recover
     the funds.
282. That the Court should also note here that Proskauer has been linked to the Madoff
     scandal, initially claiming they had the most Madoff clients and holding a national call in
     for clients, etc. 8 Keep in mind that later it was learned that most of the "victims" of
     Madoff where part of the Ponzi (more aptly Money Laundering) scheme. That Madoff
     and Stanford both burned many South Florida charities, including children's charities and
     bankrupted many families here in Florida.
283. That Spallina stated that the Estates of Simon and Shirley had two ongoing litigations
     involving monies in Stanford but again TS has failed to release any information to
     Petitioner upon repeated requests.
284. That the Stanford monies now according to Spallina are almost all gone somehow
     vanishing into thin air like a magic trick between transferring the funds out of Stanford ,
     into JP Morgan Private Banking accounts and then supposedly to Oppenheimer.
     However, Spallina stated that Simon never transferred the monies to Oppenheimer, yet
     Petitioner on information and belief has learned that this was not true and Simon did
     have Oppenheimer accounts at some point. Certain eye witnesses to Simon's accounts



8
 "Madoff Case Discussion - Proskauer Rose LLP"
http://www.proskauer.com/files/Event/le0d8a8c-e42f-436c-a89f-
2128cbccfb30 /Prese ntation/EventAttach ment/aec49c40-3 63c-4e 7 5-b536-2355d 2233897 /M adoffCase Discussion.pdf
and
"U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Investigations Investigation of Failure of the SEC to Uncover
Bernard Madoff's Ponzi Scheme - Public Version - August31, 2009 Report No. OIG-509"
http://www .sec.gov/new s/studies/2009/oig-509.pdf
and
"The News For Law Firm Giant Proskauer Rose is Not Good, and Getting Worse" by NYCOURTS- NEW YORK AND U.S.
COURT CORRUPTION FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2009
htt :
      have stated to Petitioner that one of Simon's accounts had approximately USO
      $5,000,000.00 days before his death.
285 . That Spallina when questioned on these funds claims that Simon used the investment
      account monies to pay off his homes and never had any monies transferred into
      Oppenheimer, which appears contrary to information Petitioner has learned.
286. That TS initially claimed there were IRA's for both Simon and Shirley worth several
      million dollars in the Estates and several months later claimed nothing was left in IRA's
      and still have provided no documentation or inventories to Beneficiaries for these assets.

        3. TELENET SYSTEMS, INC. 9

287. That when asked how the IRA's had disappeared over the last months, the reply from
      Spallina was that Simon had taken the millions and spent it and Spallina stated that
      some of it, USO $250,000.00 had been taken to give to Scott Banks ("Banks"), President
      of Telenet Systems, Inc. ("Telenet") for the venture Simon had started months prior to his
      death with Banks.
288 . That after Spallina claimed that Telenet had received this money, Petitioner informed
      Spallina that this was wholly untrue as Banks had never received USO $250,000.00 from
      Simon, as Petitioner was integrally involved in the Telenet company start up with Simon
      and Banks and that Simon had not completed the financing of Telenet's USO
      $250,000 .00 personal investment before his death or raised the USO $500,000.00 Line
      of Credit Simon was working to secure with his banking connections prior to passing.
      Simon had already begun meeting with bankers to raise the LC.
289. That to the best of Petitioner's knowledge no more than USO $55,000.00 had been
      funded by Simon personally before his passing. Petitioner asked Spallina where the
      remaining USO $200,000.00 of the IRA he claimed Simon took for Telenet went and
      Spallina again became hostile and claimed there was nothing left period.
290. That Petitioner then asked for an accounting of the millions that were supposed to be in
      IRA's and the loans against them and any transactions paid to Telenet and Spallina
      again became irate with Petitioner and still has refused any accounting for these assets
      and proof of any loans against them to Petitioner or Yates.
291. That when Petitioner asked what Spallina was doing about the continuation of Telenet,
      as an asset of the estate, Spallina stated that Theodore was handling the decision of
      what to do as he turned this responsibility and decisions over to Theodore, despite
      Theodore having no legal capacity to act in the estate of Simon.
292. That Petitioner informed Spallina that he was promised by Simon USO $50,000.00 to
      help set up the computer systems and form as les team for Telenet, which he had


9
 Draft Telenet Business Plan August 2012
www .iviewit.tv/2012 Draft Telenet Business Plan.pdf
      begun doing but was not yet paid as Simon passed away just prior to completing the
      funding that would have paid Petitioner what Telenet owed him.
293. That Theodore and TS without properly informing Beneficiaries ceased funding of the
      investment in Telenet and forgave any debts owed and forgave any interests owned by
      the estate, all without any notification or accounting for these assets and interests to
      Beneficiaries and Interested Parties. That money had already transferred for several
      months prior to Simon's death to Telenet in the spirit of their agreement and to pay the
      new bills encumbered by Telenet based on Simon's promise to pay.
294 . That this sudden termination of funding sent Telenet into a sharp and catastrophic
      decline, due to the fact that at Simon's request and with Simon's initial funding's over a
      two month period, Banks had begun hiring staff, had taken a new lease on new office
      space, purchased computers and more, all on the assumption that Simon was going to
      continue funding the company up to the agreed upon amount per their agreement.
295. That most of the legal work had already been drafted and agreed to between Simon and
      Banks and was ready to sign and they were already acting in good faith together under
      the contract terms, setting up new companies, etc.
296. That Candice was contracted for a base salary of USO $60 ,000.00 with a 50%
      commission split on all business generated by Petitioner, Simon and her own sales
      efforts.
297. That Simon had claimed that his shares in TS when he deceased would be split between
      his estate and then Puccio, Petitioner and Candice would diwy up the remainder
      equally.
298. That Simon's desire was to have Petitioner, Candice, Puccio and his friends Scott and
      Diana Banks all working together with him in Telenet, as he was moving out of his offices
      with Theodore due to an increasingly hostile environment. Simon had been financing
      deals for Telenet and Banks for several years prior on a one-off basis when Banks
      needed capital and so he knew the business inside and out and projected a large ROI as
      evidenced in the exhibited Telenet business plan.
299. That TS instead of having the US $55,000.00 investment in the Telenet deal accounted
      for and properly disposed of via the Estate by the designated Personal Representatives,
      TS, Tescher and Spallina, instead put Theodore in charge of handling the interest in
      Telenet for no apparent reason, as Theodore has no basis to act in this or any capacity
      under the Estates. Again Breach of Fiduciary duties of the Personal Representatives in
      the handling of the Estates assets and failure to report to Beneficiaries a major asset
      sale.
300. That the instant termination of funding by Theodore and Spallina immediately after
      Simon's death forced Banks to fire the newly hired employees, move from his office
      space (still owing the lease amount) and sell off assets to survive, none of the debts to
      Petitioner or Candice were paid off either, all against the desires of Simon. That to
      further injure Simon's friends, Bank's wife l? i ~ , J~1¥"as then terminated from employment
                                                -        . ·---·~~
                                                    ,·
                                                                  ... -
                                                             'f!~....
                                                              .    !j.·:'.
                                                           · -~~·~·· ·
     by Theodore from UC with barely any notice and no severance or benefits for her loyal
     years of loving service, truly a depressing period for the Banks.
301. That Theodore claimed when questioned on what he was going to do with Telenet,
     stated he already had ceased relations with Banks as the agreement between T elenet
     and Simon was not 100% perfected before his death. Theodore chose without
     accounting for this asset to the Beneficiaries and providing no notice to, nor receiving
     any consent from the Beneficiaries, ceased relations entirely with Telenet and
     abandoned the Estates interests in Telenet, all apparently with no authority under the
     Estates.
302. That the decision to cease funding and relations with Telenet was made by Theodore
     and Spallina together according to Banks. Banks claimed that he was bounced for
     several weeks between the two trying desperately to get answers as the business he
     started with Simon was going under.

      4. Family Businesses

303. That Petitioner asked Spallina if he had the buy sell agreements, etc. that transferred the
     interests of the long standing family companies Simon owned and had sold some to
     Pamela and others to Theodore to make sure that all the terms and payments were
     made according to the contracts and that the contracts were wholly fulfilled. Petitioner
     sought these items to determine if there were balances unpaid and if so, what remained
     unpaid and what interests would be retained if payments were not yet made in full or
     what payments were owed to the Estates.
304. That Spallina stated that the buyout transactions occurred a long time ago (believed to
     be in the mid 2000's) with Pamela and so it did not matter anymore, again legal advice
     that did not sound kosher and where no accounting of these assets or Simon's interests
     (including renewal commissions and over-rides on premium financing dollars) have been
     offered by TS to the Beneficiaries.
305. That Petitioner asked Spallina and Theodore to procure any buy sell agreements or
     other agreements regarding the ownership of the businesses that Simon and Theodore
     were splitting prior to his death and they both claimed not to possess any. As Petitioner
     and his children are direct shareholders of certain of these companies, Petitioner asked
     Spallina for the value of the companies and he claimed he did not know and stated that
     Theodore would be best able to answer the question.
306. That Theodore then claimed in the conference call with Spallina, Tescher, Yates,
     Pamela, Jill and Lisa that the companies were now all worthless currently and nothing
     was in them or anticipated to be in them. When Petitioner asked about renewals and
     other income to the companies from premium financing arrangements, Theodore stated
     these were meaningless amounts, yet parole vidence in the Stansbury lawsuit appears
     to contradict these claims.
307. That Theodore is not an accountant, has not graduated college, has declared personal
     and professional bankruptcies and has no known ability to evaluate a company
     financially, most importantly he obviously was conflicted in assessing the businesses that
     he personally has large interests in. The Personal Representatives TS, Spallina and
     Tescher should have instead had an independent accounting firm do a proper
     accounting of the businesses to analyze the value of the companies for the Estates and
     Beneficiaries, further evidencing a lack of duty and care by Spallina and Breach of
     Fiduciary Duties.
308. That Spallina in a family meeting claimed that there is now only a few hundred thousand
     dollars of cash and cash equivalents left in the Estates, a far cry from the believed worth
     of Simon's Private Banking investment accounts with Stanford, JP Morgan and
     Oppenheimer alone.
309. That Simon also had other assets, such as bank accounts, IRA's, pensions, insurance,
     etc. that he possessed and again no information of any of these assets has been sent to
     Beneficiaries, in opposite of the terms of the Trusts and law and where these assets
     were to be divvied up promptly to the Beneficiaries. Where now seven months after
     Simon's passing no assets have been distributed to Petitioner's family and the
     Beneficiaries have NO way to ascertain anything they are inheriting due to the lack of
     documentation provided by the Personal Representatives, in violation of law, as
     evidenced ad nauseam already herein but there is more.


XV.     THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
        THE IVIEWIT COMPANIES STOCK AND PATENT INTEREST HOLDINGS
        OWNED BY SIMON AND SHIRLEY, AS WELL AS, INTERESTS IN A FEDERAL
        RIC0 10 ACTION REGARDING THE THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES
        AND ONGOING STATE, FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS


      IVIEWIT BACKGROUND HISTORY

310. That in 1997 Petitioner moved from Corona Del Mar, California to Boca Raton, Florida
     after having his first son Joshua. After Petitioner's parents could not fly out to California
     even for the bris of their grandson due to health problems, it was decided by Petitioner
     and Candice that they would move to Florida so they could see and be with Joshua
     weekly. Simon and Shirley were elated and helped Petitioner and Candice secure a


10
  lviewit/Eliot Bernstein RICO and ANTITRUST Amended Complaint
http://www. iviewit. tv I Com pa nyDocs/U n ited%20States%2 0 District%20Cou rt%20So uth ern %20District%20N Y/20080509%2
OFINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RIC0%2051                       ED%20COPY%20MED. df
       condominium minutes from their home. Simon and Shirley put USO $100,000.00 down
       on the condominium, as a wedding gift to Petitioner and Candice.
311.   That Petitioner and Simon for the first time began working in the insurance business
       together in close proximity and Petitioner was pursuing at the time work on making
       Simon's insurance plans quotes and sales data into screaming digital media
       presentations for carriers, clients and underwriters. That Petitioner was commissioned
       by Simon to build a website and design the software necessary to implement the idea, as
       websites were the hottest new thing at the time for businesses and Simon wanted
       Petitioner to create digital presentations for clients, carriers and banks and create a
       digital underwriting program that could be used online and get his companies ahead in
       the new digital age.
312.   That Petitioner was and is computer savvy and was already working with a team in
       California to achieve online multimedia presentations and quickly had a team put
       together in Boca Raton, including two of Simon's clubs staff workers, Jude Rosario and
       Zachirul Shirajee, who Petitioner employed to work on these projects and who instantly
       became more a part of the family than just employees.
313.   That the problem was that online bandwidth is limited and rich image and video
       presentations just would not work on a thin pipe, such as internet modems. Petitioner
       had created high quality video and graphic presentations that worked well on the
       computer or CD and then compressed them for the web at low bandwidth, the videos
       became graphic nightmares and they were left with basic text presentations and banner
       ads that looked horrific. Simon stated he would never use it to sell to clients or carriers
       with the quality so pathetically poor and so Petitioner went back to the drawing board,
       again and again and again, failing repeatedly.
314.   That Simon urged Petitioner to continue trying to resolve the problems and "fix this shit
       up" or get rid of the computers and website wholly. The problem for Petitioner and
       millions of others at the time was that leading engineers worldwide had already given up
       the search to fix these problems, as mathematically trying to get good video and imaging
       to end users over low bandwidth was deemed the Internet Holy Grail, as it was akin to
       trying to suck an elephant through a straw.
315.   That Petitioner after many sleepless nights with his team suddenly had a series of divine
       epiphanies that changed the world in a multiplicity of ways and continue to do so. That
       Petitioner and his immediate and extended families' lives changed too on the discovery
       of these novel inventions.
316.   That as soon as the first invention was realized and displayed, Simon and Petitioner
       decided to get patents as no one had ever seen images that could zoom endlessly over
       low bandwidth and Simon's friend and neighbor Lewin, who was Petitioner's accountant
       personally, said he could help and introduced em to Proskauer to form companies and
       protect the Intellectual Properties.
317. That these were very happy times for Petitioner's family and his parents, Candice had
      another son Jacob and he and Joshua saw their grandparents 2-3 times a week and
      Simon and Petitioner had just rented large office space in Boca and were ramping up for
      an IPO.
                                                                                             11
318. That the Estates of Petitioner's parents have large interests in the lviewit companies
      that were then formed. Where Simon and Petitioner started certain of the lviewit
      companies together with a 70-30 stock split between them, 30% owned by Simon for the
      initial seed capital of approximately USO $250,000.00 and 70% owned by Petitioner for
      inventing the technologies that were to be licensed through the lviewit companies. Other
      companies were however then set up without their knowledge by their Attorneys at Law,
      Proskauer, and these companies are now subject to several ongoing investigations and
      lawsuits.
319. That Simon had an office in the lviewit companies, alongside Petitioner and where
      Simon was an active participant in getting the company up, raising capital and running it
      initially as Chairman of the Board of Directors. That was until Lewin and Proskauer's
      partners had Simon relieved as Chairman, stating that it was a condition of Huizenga's
      attorney to obtain further seed capital infusion, capital that never came as other investors
      swooped in and where later Huizenga's attorney's claimed this to be an untrue statement
      they never made.
                                                                                              12
320. That Petitioner and Simon retained Proskauer to procure Intellectual Properties ("IP") ,
      including but not limited to, US and Foreign Patents, US Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade
      Secrets and more and to form companies to hold and license such IP.
321 . That the IP centers around a group of technologies in digital imaging and video that have
      been estimated as "Priceless," the "Holy Grail" and "worth hundreds of billions" by
      leading engineers from companies such as Lockheed, Intel, Warner Bros., AOL, Sony

11
   List of lviewit companies:
      1. lviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
      2. lviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL (yes, two identically named)
      3. lviewit Holdings, Inc. - FL (yes, three identically named)
      4. lviewit Technologies, Inc. - DL
      5. Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
      6. Uview.com, Inc. - DL
      7. lviewit.com, Inc. - FL
      8. lviewit.com, Inc. - DL
      9. l.C., Inc. - FL
      10. lviewit.com LLC - DL
      11. lviewit LLC - DL
      12. lviewit Corporation - FL
      13. lviewit, Inc. - FL
      14. lviewit, Inc. - DL
      15. lviewit Corporation
Herein together as ("lviewit" or "lviewit companies")
12
   http://www.iviewit.tv/#USPTOFILINGS
     and more, all fully part of public record with over a decade of validation and exhibited in
     more detail in the Wachovia Private Placement13 and at the lviewit Web Exhibit List14 .
322. That these Intellectual Properties have wholly changed the world in profound and
     fantastic ways over the last decade, revolutionizing the digital video and imaging worlds,
     to allow for markets that could not exist without them , such as,

        i. Quality Internet video as used by virtually anyone plugged in digitally, for example,
           YouTube is 100% reliant on lviewit's technologies and is now the largest broadcaster
           in the history of the world, where the name more aptly should be EliotTube,
       ii. Cell phone video, the hottest digital market,
      iii. Internet Video Conference,
      iv. Rich Imaging for the Internet,
       v. Camera's and optics with zoom that does not pixilate,
     vi. Cable TV with 200+ channels versus the old 40+, and,
     vii. GPS Mapping.

323. That the lviewit Technologies have literally thousands of market applications, such as,

       1. Microchips, as virtually all chips with digital imaging and video code embedded that
          have been manufactured worldwide since 1998 have stamped the lviewit
          mathematical scaling formulae upon them,
      11. Video Hardware and Software, as since 1998 virtually every product involved in
          content creation and distribution have embedded the lviewit mathematical scaling
          formulae within their source codes,
     iii. Medical Video and Imaging Hardware and Software, as virtually every medical
          product that uses scaling imaging techniques have embedded the lviewit
          mathematical scaling formulae upon them, revolutionizing the medical imaging of
          MRl's, XRAY, etc.
     iv. Military and Government Video and Imaging Hardware and Software, as virtually
          every military and government device that uses scaling video and imaging techniques
          have embedded the lviewit mathematical scaling formulae upon them, revolutionizing
          and advancing Satellite Imaging, Flight Simulation, Remote Controlled Vehicles,
          Drones, Self-Propelled Guided Weapon Systems, Space Telescopes (such as the
          Hubble and others that now bring rich views of the universe as never before seen
          offering humanity a new view into the origins of the universe) and even those pesky
          "red light" cameras, etc. etc. etc.

13
  January 2001 lviewit Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum




                                                         r ·.,
                                                         · r:_
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Wachovia%20Private%20Placement%20Memo%20with%20bookmarks/Wachovia%2
0Private%20Placement%20Memorandum%20-%20with%20bookmarks%20in%20col. df
Note that Proskauer Rose is Patent Counsel to lviewit and Lewi oes the financials for the PPM
" Mew;, •v;dence 1 ab1e   htt~HwwwJv;ew;uvL••v;dence..
     v. Camera's, phones, television and virtually any digital screen that scale images so one
        can zoom without pixilation uses the technologies, where lviewit inventions solved for
        pixilation and allowed zoom on low resolution images at depths never before seen
        and high quality low bandwidth imaging as found on virtually all websites, camera's
        and anything with a digital screen.

324. That Simon and Shirley and now their Estates Beneficiaries are one of the largest
     benefactors of such IP, along with other investors including Wayne Huizenga, Crossbow
     Ventures (W. Palm Beach, FL), Alanis Morissette, Ellen DeGeneres 15 and many more.
325. That Simon believed in the companies, so much so that he was Chairman of the Board
                                                                                17
     of Directors 16 and other Board of Directors and Officers included Lewin and members
     of Proskauer, as indicated in the Wachovia PPM that Proskauer prepared and
     distributed, already exhibited and evidenced herein. Proskauer even secured a lease for
     lviewit directly across the hall from their offices in Boca Raton, FL. and had a team of
     lawyers from all practice areas basically move into the lviewit offices, spending almost all
     of their time at lviewit.
326. That Petitioner even offered a gift of ground floor stock to Proskauer and Lewin who paid
     a nominal price for this ground floor stock in the lviewit companies, as the technologies
     had been validated before their own eyes by leading engineers and was already, even in
     the very beginning, estimated to be the biggest technological advancement in the history
     of digital video and imaging.
327. That Jill and her husband Guy lantoni ("Guy") bought in ground floor and even moved to
     Florida from Chicago to work in the lviewit offices, as they had been instrumental in
     helping Petitioner from the start. That Jill's moving with her husband and daughter to
     Florida also brought happiness to Simon and Shirley.
328. That Lisa and her husband Jeffrey Friedstein ("Jeffrey") bought in ground floor and
     Jeffrey became involved through his employer Goldman Sachs, where his father
     Sheldon Friedstein was a long time Goldman agent and Goldman after signing a
     Confidentiality Agreement began instantly introducing the technologies to major players,
     including several Fortune 500 companies and Billionaire clients, many who began
     working on various licensing arrangements for usage.
329. That other law firms and their partners and friends of Petitioner from California and
     elsewhere all bought in, all owned stock, along with all of the employees, as Petitioner
     had desired everyone involved at the ground floor and contributing sweat to be
     shareholders as well. Many of these ground floor investors had a wealth of clients,
     including many Fortune 100 clients that they introduced the technologies and were in

15
   Ellen DeGeneres lviewit Video htt : www. outube.com watch?v=2xfK4VvhzQ
16
   Simon Bernstein 1998 Video lviewit
http ://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=L6D1uTb TIZo
17
   Gerald "Jerry" Lewin 1998 Video lviewit
http :Uwww.youtube.com/watch ?v=Uqea UOaS U-Q
       various stages of the licensing the IP and using the technologies all under various
       contracts with lviewit. Doors were opened and the technologies were quickly embraced.
330.   That licensing deals with AOL, TW, Real 30 (Intel, Silicon Graphics, Lockheed), Sony
       and many others were inked or being finalized and a Private Placement was in place
       with Wachovia, when it was discovered by others doing due diligence on the PPM and
       from an audit that was being conducted that lviewit IP Counsel and others were
       attempting to steal the lviewit IP, through the use of complicated legal schemes,
       including an involuntary bankruptcy and a Proskauer instigated billing lawsuit in this
       courthouse, to be discussed more fully herein.
331.   That first discovered was that one of the attorneys brought in by Proskauer, Raymond
       Anthony Joao, was putting patents in his own name, with Joao later claiming 90+ patents
       in his own name and suddenly, after meeting Petitioner and taking invention disclosures,
       Joao became more inventive than Tesla.
332.   That then Proskauer brought in Foley attorneys after they removed Joao, in order to fix
       Joao's work and they too were found putting patents in other's name, including Utley and
       in so doing they were committing Fraud not only the lviewit Shareholders but upon the
       US Patent Office, which has led to ongoing investigations and suspension of the IP by
       the US Patent Office.
333.   That then Proskauer's Kenneth Rubenstein (lviewit's Patent Counsel as stated in the
       Wachovia PPM) was found to be transferring the technologies to Patent Pooling
       Schemes he is the sole patent reviewer for and founder of and now Proskauer controls
       these pools that are the largest infringers of Petitioner and Simon's IP, including but not
       limited to, MPEGLA LLC.
334.   That Proskauer then illegally tied and bundled the IP to thousands of applications and
       created licensing schemes in violation of Sherman and Clayton and most of the Antitrust
       laws and thus through these illegal legal schemes so converted the royalties from the
       lviewit Shareholders and Inventors to Proskauer and their friends. In further efforts to
       block lviewit from market or bring their crimes to light of day, an organized and
       conspiratorial effort began against Petitioner and his family and the lviewit companies. It
       should be noted that prior to learning of the lviewit inventions, Proskauer did not even
       have an Intellectual Property department and immediately acquired Rubenstein from a
       law firm where he and Joao were already working on pooling schemes and so Proskauer
       started a new Intellectual Property department days after learning of the inventions from
       Petitioner with Rubenstein and cornered the market for Petitioner's inventions through
       these pools.
335.   That upon discovering these alleged criminal acts and Petitioner reporting the
       perpetrators to State and Federal authorities, the Board of Directors and others,
       Proskauer, Foley, Utley and others began an instant campaign to destroy the lviewit
       companies and evidences of their crimes and o destroy Petitioner, his family,
       shareholders and his friends.
336. That information was learned in an audit from Crossbow Venture's by Arthur Andersen
     that there were several companies with identical names but different dates and minutes
     were missing from some and share distributions. That Arthur Andersen alleged that
     Erika Lewin, daughter of Lewin and Goldstein Lewin and lviewit employee had
     intentionally misled auditors regarding the corporations' structures.
337. That at that same time it was learned that technology transfers were occurring with
     Enron Broadband to do a deal, unbeknownst to shareholders and Board Members, with
     Huizenga's Blockbuster Video to do a digital on.line movie download program, using
     technologies Enron had suddenly acquired to deliver the movies full screen full rate.
     That Enron Broadband then booked revenue in advance of their venture based on
     having the stolen IP but this was derailed as the scheme was being exposed and it was
     Enron Broadband that truly caused the Enron Bankruptcy as the records indicate.
338. That at that time, Warner Bros. and AOL investment and patent counsel advised
     Petitioner that they had reviewed the patents and there were "BIG PROBLEMS" and
     informed him further that he was being sued by Proskauer in a billing lawsuit and was
     involved in an Involuntary BK that no one knew about at the lviewit companies and that
     the legal actions were somehow even represented by counsel. That no one admitted at
     the lviewit companies, Proskauer or Goldstein Lewin to knowing about any of these legal
     actions against the company and certainly no one had informed Wachovia of anything
     like this and that had just conducted due diligence on the IP and companies with
     Proskauer, Utley and Lewin. Small oversight to have forgot to tell the Bankers,
     Investors, Board of Directors, etc.
339. That the IP's worth has provided motive for a multitude of predicate acts under RICO in
     attempts to steal the IP. Acts directly against Petitioner and Simon's families, continuing
     now through a Fraud on this Court through Fraudulent and Forged documents to rob the
     Estates and more with an identical cast of characters committing virtually the same type
     of schemes and alleged crimes in this Court. Some of the alleged crimes include but are
     far from limited to,

     i. ATTEMPTED MURDER via a CAR BOMBING 18 of Petitioner's family vehicle that
        blew up three cars next to it in Del Ray Beach, FL., graphic images at www.iviewit.tv,




                                  auto Auto%20Theft%20and%20Fire%20Master%20Document. df
      ii. death threats against Petitioner and Petitioner's wife and children from a Proskauer
          and Foley referred President and COO of the lviewit companies, a one Brian G.
          Utley, who was also found having his friend at Foley and old IBM pal, William Dick
          ("Dick"), writing IP into his name 19 , like one Utley claims to have invented "Zoom and
          Pan on a Digital Camera" when he was not hired for a half a year or so after that
          invention was discovered and where it was confiscated from his person with an entire
          set of fraudulent patents that no one had known or approved and Dick had done
          through Foley. These patents in Utley's name and others, are now subject to a
19
   It was not learned until after Utley was fired that Utley, Wheeler and Dick had a sordid past of attempted theft of
intellectual properties from a one Monte Friedkin of Diamond Turf Equipment of Florida. Friedkin stated to Petitioner and
others that he employed Utley at Diamond Turf until he found that he was using Dick to write patents into his name and
send them to a company Wheeler of Proskauer had formed at his home. Upon learning of this, Friedkin fired Utley and
closed Diamond Turf. Wheeler than introduced Utley to lviewit with a false resume that omitted what happened at
Diamond Turf and finally Utley and Wheeler recommended their riend Dick of Foley and so is evidenced a pattern and
practice of patent thieves and conspiracy.
             Congressional investigation 20 that was forwarded to the Inspector General of the
             Department of Justice, Glenn Fine at that time, by Hon. Senator Dianne Feinstein for
             further investigations and
        iii. Forged and Fraudulent Documents submitted to the US Patent Office and then other
             Foreign IP offices by former lviewit IP counsel that have led to Suspension of the IP21
             pending the outcome of US Patent Office and Federal FBI Official Investigations of
             the Intellectual Property Attorneys at Law and others involved in the crimes, including
             but not limited to, lviewit former IP counsel, Proskauer, Foley and GT. Yes, the same
             firms that all now have a hand in the Estates in strange ways.

        ESTATE INTERESTS IN IVIEWIT, IP & RICO

340. That the following letters were sent to TS, Exhibit 26 - Petitioner Letter Exchange with
     TS Regarding lviewit, regarding the lviewit companies stock Simon owned, his IP
     interests and his interests in the ongoing RICO action and his desires and wishes of how
     to handle he stated to Petitioner.
341. That Theodore had initially advised Spallina in the May 12, 2012 family meeting that he
     thought Proskauer had done some estate planning work for Simon and his friend Gartz
     might have a copy of the missing llT discussed already herein and Spallina stated he too
     had friends at Proskauer that he would contact to find out if they had the missing llT and
     he would also inquire about the lviewit companies and see if they knew anything.
342. That Petitioner was stunned to learn that Theodore was friendly with the central
     Defendant Gartz, GT and others involved in the lviewit RICO and criminal complaints
     filed and had brought them into the Estates affairs.
343. That Spallina had stated that he was a very close and an intimate personal friend of
     Simon whom knew his business and personal affairs well, yet when Petitioner
     questioned Spallina on how the lviewit companies shares, potentially the largest asset of

20
  April 19, 2006 Letter to Diane Feinstein Re: IVIEWIT REQUEST FOR: (I) AN ACT OF CONGRESS & CONGRESSIONAL
INTERVENTION TO PROTECT STOLEN INVENTIONS & INVENTORS RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8, OF THE
CONSTITUTION, (II) CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION IN HAVING INFORMATION RELEASED TO NON-INVENTORS AND
PARTIES WITH NO RIGHTS, TITLE OR INTEREST IN STOLEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES. WITHOUT SUCH INTERVENTION,
INVENTIONS MAY BE PERMANETLY LOST DUE A FRAUD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BY
REGISTERED FEDERAL PATENT BAR LAWYERS, {Ill) CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT IN THE FEDERAL, STATE AND
INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY BY A NUMBER OF AGENCIES DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND, (IV)
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE LEGAL PROCESS AND THE ENSURING OF A CONFLICT FREE FORUM FOR DUE PROCESS
AND PROCEDURE OF THE ACCUSSED LAWYER CRIMINALS.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Congress/Letter%20to%20the%20Honorable%20Senator%20Dianne%20Feinstein%20D%2
0Cal ifornia%20Signed .pdf

21
  US Patent Office Suspension Notice and Complaint against lviewit retained Attorneys at Law for FRAUD ON THE US
PATENT OFFICE and lviewit companies shareholders. Note the complaints were also signed by Stephen Warner of
Crossbow Ventures, a large investor in the lviewit companies and one of the assignees on the IP.
htt :



                                                  .,
                                                 '·'
        the Estates, would be split among the Beneficiaries and if he had the stock certificates,
        etc., he claimed to know absolutely nothing about the lviewit companies and claimed to
        have never heard of it from Simon.
344.    That Petitioner explained to Spallina that Proskauer was IP and General Counsel for the
        lviewit companies and when the lviewit companies were raising a Private Placement with
        Wachovia Securities, Proskauer had even done some estate planning work for Simon
        and Petitioner so that the value of the stock could be transferred in advance to Simon's
        children and grandchildren and Petitioner's infant children so as to grow in their estates
        and not have to transfer it to them when the stock prices surged, as the company was
        already valued high for a startup company.
345.    That Proskauer billed for and completed irrevocable trusts for Joshua and Jacob at that
        time to transfer a 10% interest of Petitioner's stock in lviewit into and Simon and
        Petitioner did estate plans with Gortz.
346.    That at that time the lviewit companies were set to go public with Wachovia and with
        Goldman Sachs also acting as an Investment Banker to lviewit and it was anticipated to
        far exceed even the largest IPO's of the Internet boom, as the IP is the main driver to
        rich multimedia over the Internet, which is the largest use of Internet bandwidth globally,
        where video transmitted using Petitioner's inventions is claimed to be approximately 90%
        or more of total Internet transmissions and where now over 90% of digital imaging
        devices now infringe on the lviewit IP22 .
347.    That Petitioner informed Spallina that both Proskauer and Lewin would have all the
        records of the lviewit companies, as they were counsel and accountants for lviewit and
        started all the lviewit companies and distributed all the shares, including Simon and
        Shirley's shares and even the shares Proskauer and Lewin owned.
348.    That Spallina after contacting Proskauer and Lewin claimed they stated they knew
        nothing about lviewit at which point Petitioner further informed Spallina of their prior roles
        in the lviewit companies to aid in refreshing their memories; see Exhibit 27 - Letter from
        Petitioner to Spallina Re lviewit's Relation to Proskauer and Lewin. Petitioner found it
        strange that Gortz and Lewin claimed they did not know of the RICO action and what has
        been transpiring over the last several years and somehow had forgotten history, when
        Lewin claimed in his deposition that will be further exhibited herein, when asked about
        his recollections on lviewit he actually claimed "he was trying to erase his memory" or
        words to that effect and it appears he had now successfully erased it23 .
349.    That the following LAW FIRMS, Proskauer, GT and Foley are direct Defendants in a
        Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit filed that has been legally related by Federal

22
  "Cisco Predicts That 90% Of All Internet Traffic Will Be Video In The Next Three Years" by Megan O'Neill,
WebMediaBrands Inc. on November 1, 20114:45 PM
http://socialtimes.com/cisco-predicts-that-90-of-all-internet-traffic-will-be-video-in-the-next-three-years b82819

23
     Lewin Deposition on erasing his memory
htt :
     Judge, Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, to a New York Supreme Court Attorney Whistleblower
     Lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson ("Anderson"). Anderson an expert in Attorney at Law
     misconduct complaints who was employed by the NY Supreme Court Departmental
     Disciplinary Committee until she was fired in retaliation for her heroic Whistleblowing
     efforts.
350. That Petitioner and Anderson also testified before the New York Senate Judiciary
     Committee at ongoing hearings on Public Office Corruption in the New York Supreme
     Court Disciplinary Departments24 and now RIVITING NEW NEWS STORIES REVEAL A
     MASSIVE CONSPIRACY IN THE NEW YORK AND OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL
     COURTS COMMITTED MAINLY BY CORRUPTED ATTORNEYS AT LAW ACTING IN
     ROLES IN GOVERNMENT REGULATORY AGENCIES, PUBLIC DEFENDERS
     OFFICES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POSITIONS, STATE AND FEDERAL
     COURTS, SENIOR COURT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES AND MORE.
351. That these recent news articles, see Exhibit 28 - Expose Corrupt Court Articles, show
     that Whistleblower Anderson was targeted and her privacy rights violated along with
     other "targets" by Senior Members of the New York Disciplinary Departments and courts
     with the intent to intentionally "Obstruct Justice" in her case and the legally related cases,
     including Petitioner's RICO, in unparalleled fashion.
352. That the articles of particular interest to this Court are found at the following URL's,
      i. That on Friday, January 25, 2013, ECC released the RIVITING STORY,

          "FORMER INSIDER ADMITS TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPS FOR NYS 'ETHICS
          BOSSES"'

          http ://exposecorru ptcou rts. blog spot. com/2013/01 /former-insider-ad m its-to-iIleg al.htm I


      ii. That on Sunday, February 10, 2013, ECC released the story,




24
  Eliot Bernstein Testimony:
http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=7oHKs crYls
and
Christine Anderson Testimony:

A sample of the New York Disciplinary Department Ethics Department as Robert Ostertag former President of the New
York State Bar Wants to Give "Finger" to Victim at Senate Judiciary Hearing
http://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=jndsg FNo-jc
Testimony of Hon Duane Hart NY Supreme Court Judge Testimony          NY Senate Judiciary Hearing John Sampson Pl
http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53jPDBR80Xc
P2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdlmeFsH3oY
    "UPDATE ON ATTORNEY "ETHICS" COMMITTEES' ILLEGAL WIRETAPS
    FORMER INSIDER ADMITS TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPS FOR "ETHICS" BOSSES."

    htt p://exposecorruptcourts. blogspot.com/2013/02/update-on-attorn ey-ethics-committees. html

iii. That on Friday February 15, 2013, ECC released the SHOCKING following two
     stories,


    "JUDGES WERE ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPED, SAYS
    INSIDER"
    http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2013/02/judges-we re-illega lly-wiretapped-says. html

    and

    http:// eth icsgat e. blogspot.com/2013/02/j udges-we re-i1lega Ily-wi reta pped-says. htm I

1v. That on Friday February 15, 2013, ECG released the story,

    "NY GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO ASKED TO SHUT DOWN JUDICIAL
    "ETHICS" OFFICES."
    http://ethicsgate.blogspot.com/2013/02/ny-governor-andrew-cuomo-asked-to-shut.html

v. That on Friday, February 15, 2013, ECC released the story,

    "SEE THE LETTER TO NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO RE:
    WIRETAPPING JUDGES ... CLICK HERE TO SEE THE LETTER, AT


    htt p:Uet hi csgate. blogspot.com/2013/02/letter-to-new-york-governor-a ndrew.html

v1. That on Tuesday, February 19, 2013, ECC released the story,

    "ETIDCSGATE UPDATE FAXED TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR
    WWW.ETHICSGATE.COM "THE ULTIMATE VIOLATION OF TRUST IS THE
    CORRUPTION OF ETHICS OVERSIGHT" EXCLUSIVE UPDATE:

vii. That on Thursday, February 28, 2013, ECC released the story,

    "NEW YORK SENATORS ASKED TO APPOINT ETIDCS CORRUPTION
    LIAISON ... EVERY NEW YORK STATE SENATOR HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO
    APPOINT AN "ETHICS CORRUPTION LIAISON" SO THAT TIMELY
    INFORMATION IN THE EVER-GROWING SCANDAL INSIDE NEW YORK'S SO-
                                            . MA&·
                                    E ~~°-. VIDED TO EACH STATE SENATOR.

                                                 ···
                                                ·p ..': '
    CALLED "ETIDCS" ENTITIES

                                                     • ' ·•..       ·.   .   ..">' :;;

                                                '"              8                   1
viii. That on Wednesday April 03, 2013, ECC released the story,

    FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST NYS EMPLOYEES FOR ILLEGAL
    WIRETAPPING ... THE WIDESPREAD ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING INCLUDED
    TARGETED NEW YORK STATE JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS .....

    Excerpts from that story


         Reform2013.com
         P.O. Box 3493
         New York, New York 10163
         202-374-3680 tel
         202-827-9828 fax
         via facsimile# 202-514-6588

         April 3, 2013

         Robert Moossy, Jr., Section Chief Criminal Section, Civil Rights Division
         US Department of Justice
         950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
         Washington, D.C. 20530

         RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST NEW YORK STATE EMPLOYEES
         INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING WIDESPREAD
         ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING

         Dear Mr. Moossy,




         In researching and reporting on various acts of corruption in and about the New York
         State Court System, specific reviewed evidence supports allegations that over a ten-
         year-plus period of time, certain NYS employees participated in the widespread
         practice of illegal wiretapping, inter alia. As these individuals were in supervisory
         positions at "ethics oversight" committees, the illegal wiretapping largely concerned
         attorneys and judges, but their actions also targeted other individuals who had some
         type of dealings with those judicial and attorney "ethics" committees.

         The NY state-employed individuals herein complained of include New York State
         admitted attorneys Thomas Joseph Cahill, Alan Wayne Friedberg, Sherry
         Kruger Cohen, David Spoko1              dNaomi Freyda Goldstein.
At some point in time shortly after 9/11, and by methods not addressed here, these
individuals improperly utilized access to, and devices of, the lawful
operations of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (the "JTTF"). These
individuals completely violated the provisions of FISA, ECPA and the
Patriot Act for their own personal and political agendas. Specifically, these
NY state employees essentially commenced "black bag operations," including illegal
wiretapping, against whomever they chose- and without legitimate or lawful purpose.

To be clear, any lawful act involving the important work of the JTTF is to be applauded.
The herein complaint simply addresses the unlawful access- and use- of JTTF related
operations for the personal and political whims of those who improperly acted under
the color of law. Indeed, illegally utilizing JTTF resources is not only illegal, it is a
complete insult to those involved in such important work.

In fact, hard-working and good-intentioned prosecutors and investigators (federal and
state) are also victims here, as they were guided and primed with knowingly false
information.

Operations involving lawful activity- and especially as part of the important work of the
JTTF and related agencies- are not at issue here. This complaint concerns the illegal use
and abuse of such lawful operations for personal and political gain, and all such activity
while acting under the color of law. This un-checked access to highly-skilled operatives
found undeserving protection for some connected wrong-doers, and the complete
destruction of others- on a whim, including the pre-prosecution priming of falsehoods
("set-ups"). The aftermath of such abuse for such an extended period of time is
staggering.

It is believed that most of the 1.5 million-plus items in evidence now
under seal in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
case #09cr405 (EDNY) supports the fact, over a ten-year-plus period of
time, of the illegal wiretapping of New York State judges, attorneys, and
related targets, as directed by state employees.

To be sure, the defendant in #09cr405, Frederick Celani, is a felon who is now regarded
by many as a conman. Notwithstanding the individual (Celani), the evidence is clear
that Celani once supervised lawful "black bag operations," and, further, that certain
NYS employees illegally utilized access to such operations for their own illegal
purposes. (Simple reference is made         another felon, the respected former Chief
Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, who many believe was
victimized by political pre-priming prosecution.)

In early February, 2013, I personally reviewed, by appropriate FOIL request to a NYS
Court Administrative Agency, over 1000 documents related to the herein complaint.
Those documents, and other evidence, fully support Celani's claim of his once-lawful
supervisory role in such JTIF operations, and his extended involvement with those
herein named. (The names of specific targeted judges and attorneys are available.)

One sworn affidavit, by an attorney, confirms the various illegal activity of Manhattan's
attorney "ethics" committee, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the "DDC"),
which includes allowing cover law firm operations to engage in the
practice of law without a law license. Specifically, evidence (attorney affidavits,
etc.) supports the claim that Naomi Goldstein, and other DDC employees supervised
the protection of the unlicensed practice of law. The evidence also
shows that Ms. Goldstein knowingly permitted the unlicensed practice of
law, over a five-year-plus period of time, for the purpose of gaining
access to. and information from. hundreds of litigants

Evidence also supports the widespread illegal use of "black bag operations" by the NYS
employees for a wide-range of objectives: to target or protect a certain judge or
attorney, to set-up anyone who had been deemed to be a target, or to
simply achieve a certain goal. The illegal activity is believed to not only have involved
attorneys and judges throughout all of the New York State, including all 4 court-
designated ethics "departments," but also in matters beyond the borders of New
York.

Other evidence points to varying and widespread illegal activity, and knowledge of such
activity, by these and other NYS employees --- all of startling proportions.

For example:

The "set-up" of numerous individuals for an alleged plot to bomb a Riverdale, NY
Synagogue. These individuals are currently incarcerated. The trial judge, U.S. District
Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who publicly expressed concerns over the case, saying,
"I have never heard anything like the facts of this case. I don't think any other judge has
ever heard anything like the facts of th·s case." (2nd Circuit 11cr2763)
The concerted effort to fix numerous cases where confirmed associates
of organized crime had made physical threats upon litigants and/or
witnesses, and/or had financial interests in the outcome of certain court
cases.

The judicial and attorney protection/operations, to gain control, of the $250 million-
plus Thomas Carvel estate matters, and the pre-prosecution priming of the $150
million-plus Brooke Astor estate.

The thwarting of new evidence involving a mid 1990's "set-up" of an individual, who
spent over 4 years in prison because he would not remain silent about evidence he had
involving financial irregularities and child molestation by a CEO of a prominent
Westchester, NY non-profit organization. {Hon. John F. Keenan)

The wire-tapping and ISP capture, etc., of DDC attorney, Christine C. Anderson, who
had filed a lawsuit after being assaulted by a supervisor, Sherry Cohen, and after
complaining that certain evidence in ethics case files had been improperly destroyed.
(See SDNY case #07cv9599 - Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J.)

The eToys litigation and bankruptcy, and associates of Marc Dreir, involving over $500
million and the protection by the DDC of certain attorneys, one who was found to have
lied to a federal judge over 15 times.

The "set-up" and "chilling" of effective legal counsel of a disabled woman by a powerful
CEO and his law firms, resulting in her having no contact with her children for over 6
years.

The wrongful detention for 4 years, prompted by influential NY law firms, of an early
whistleblower of the massive Wall Street financial irregularities involving Bear Sterns
and where protected attorney-client conversations were recorded and distributed.

The blocking of attorney accountability in the $1.25 billion Swiss Bank Holocaust
Survivor settlement where one involved NY admitted attorney was ultimately
disbarred- in New Jersey. Only then, and after 10 years, did the DDC follow with
disbarment. (Gizella Weisshaus v. Fagan)

Additional information will be posted on www.Reform2013.com

The allegations of widespread wiretapping by New York's so-called "ethics" committees
were relayed to New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo on February 15, 2013, and to
the DDC Chairman Mr. Roy R. L. Rear      n,Esq., who confirmed, on March 27, 2013, his
              knowledge of the allegations. (Previously, on March 25, 2013, I had written to DDC
              Deputy Chief Counsel Naomi Goldstein, copying Mr. Reardon, of my hope that she
              would simply tell the truth about the improper activity, inter alia.)

              New York judges and lawyers, and obviously the public, deserve immediate action to
              address the widespread corruption in and about New York's so-called "ethics"
              oversight entities.

              Please take immediate action regarding this troubling issue, and so as to continue the
              DOJ's efforts to help all New Yorkers restore their faith in their government.

              cc:

              U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch via facsimile 718-254-6479 and 631-715-7922

              U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Section via facsimile 202-307-1379, 202-514-0212

              The Hon. Arthur D. Spatt, via facsimile 631-712-5626

              The Hon. Colleen McMahon via facsimile 212-805-6326

              Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin via facsimile 212-805-7920

              Assistant U.S. Attorney Demetri Jones via facsimile 631-715-7922

              Assistant U.S. Attorney Perry Carbone via facsimile 914-993-1980

              Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan McGuire via 212-637-2615 and 212-637-0016

              FBI SSA Robert Hennigan via facsimile 212-384-4073 and 212-384-4074

              Pending SEC Chair Mary Jo White via facsimile 212-909-6836

              Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 2:11 PM

353. That on information and belief and after speaking with the source of the stories and
     others close to the source of the story, Petitioner learned that the plaintiffs in the "Legally
     Related" cases to Anderson, including Petitioner's lawsuit, are also "targets" and whose
     rights to privacy and property have been wholly violated by criminals disguised as
     Attorneys at Law, Judges, Disciplinary Department members, who are cloaked in often
     false legal degrees according to the articles and planted into Public Offices to derail and
     obstruct justice in lawsuits and criminal complaints against them.
354. That these insidious criminals are committing illegal legal crimes, as only licensed
     Attorneys at Law can do and using the Courts and other Public Offices to effectuate
     these crimes and then destroy their victim      ith Legal Process Abuse and more and
       misusing their legal titles and public offices to then shield themselves from prosecution
       and further abuse their victims through denials of due process through conflicts of
       interests that obstruct justice and fraud on the courts and more.
355.   That one wonders why no one is in jail for the Wallstreet Crimes, the Homeowner
       Crimes, etc. etc. etc., that have been committed mainly by "Attorneys at Law" working in
       either the cartel law firms or revolving to and from them into government posts to aid and
       abet the crimes. These stories and the heroic Whistleblowing efforts by Anderson and
       now several others reveal the reason, the regulators and prosecutors over Wall Street
       Attorneys at Law are corrupted and when the head of beast is corrupted you can bet the
       feet are too.
356.   That as the ECC articles expose, it is alleged that these schemes have infected various
       states out of New York, where apparently the same disabling of the legal system has
       occurred.
357.   That the stories reveal that JUDGES CHAMBERS, their DRESSING ROOMS and even
       their PRIVATE RESIDENCES were ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPED and more, as these
       named judges were also "targets" of those in charge of the legal regulatory agencies and
       prosecutorial offices and further many were illegally surveilled 24/7/365, some for now
       ten years. Yes, the heads of the attorney regulatory agencies are charged with targeting
       attorneys at law and judges or just about anyone that gets in their way and misusing
       public resources and funds illegally to achieve their ends, in typical Criminal Cartel
       fashion.
358.   That new evidence in the matters suggests that "targets" were unfairly accused of made
       up crimes and then sentenced to silence them as indicated in the exhibited stories.
359.   That this new public evidence shows that UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
       JUSTICE JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCE resources and funds were ILLEGALLY
       ACCESSED and used against "targets" with the intent to Obstruct Justice in lawsuits and
       criminal complaints and more.
360.   That this new public evidence shows that the UNITED STATES PATRIOT ACT was
       violated repeatedly against even private citizen "targets" with the intent to Obstruct
       Justice in lawsuits and criminal complaints and more.
361.   That Petitioner is filing a new Motion for Rehearing in the RICO based on the brand new
       evidences of Fraud on that US District Court through Obstruction, Conflicts of Interest
       and more and is drafted based on this new and riveting information. Where Petitioner's
       Petition to this Court will also be filed as exhibit in that Motion for Rehearing to evidence
       new alleged RICO activity of fraud and forgeries allegedly committed upon this Court by
       Officers of the Court, Spallina and Tescher. Exhibit 29 - Draft Motion to Rehear US
       District Court.
362.   That several months prior to his death, Simon revealed to Petitioner that he was
       considering contacting Federal Authorities investigating the lviewit affairs to offer
       eyewitness testimony and was given the na e ()f Glenn Fine, the Inspector General of
                                                    ',   .,, .•.. :'·,·:·:"~'.',",
                                              .:~· ' ' ' '. .-:j·~,J~
       the Department of Justice to contact and his referred point of contact, a one Lonnie
       Davis, of the IG's Miami Field Office. Both officials were directly and solely responsible
       for intake of the lviewit evidences for the FBI and US Attorney's offices, due to the fact
       that the original agents from both offices suddenly and mysteriously went missing,
       elevating the matters first to Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility
       and then to Department of Justice Inspector General's Office.
363.   That Petitioner remains uncertain if Simon had already made contact with prosecutorial
       offices or others to give his testimony. Now that Simon may have also been one the
       "targets" whose rights to Privacy were being violated and his conversations with
       Petitioner allegedly illegally intercepted, his willingness to go the authorities and
       conversations he had over the last year may provide additional motive for "foul play" in
       the death of Simon and the alleged criminal activities in the Estates.
364.   That Simon and his entire family were in danger after Simon gave a damaging deposition
       against Proskauer Rose in Case# CA 01-04671 AB. 25 Simon's deposition specifically
       fingered Proskauer's Rubenstein as lviewit Patent Counsel, as illustrated also in the
       Wachovia PPM and even Proskauer's own billing records, despite Rubenstein's perjured
       deposition statements and statements to officials that he knew nothing about lviewit or
       Petitioner and was not IP counsel. Rubenstein's deposition is also contained in the
       above referenced URL and confounded when evidence at Deposition contradicted his
       statements, Rubenstein then walked out of the Deposition and the case was then thrown
       by Judge Jorge Labarga. Based on new information of Fraud on the Court in that lawsuit
       and more, that case will soon be appealed in FL.
365.   That Simon had already given partial statements for Petitioner to use with State and
       Federal Authorities that are damning to Defendants in the RICO as well, as the
       statements wholly refute Rubenstein's sworn statements to authorities and in
       deposition 26 and more.
366.   That when Utley had made death threats upon Petitioner, Candice and their children,
       Board meetings were held with certain members of the Board and others that were not
       presumed to be involved in the thefts and they decided that Petitioner, who was in
       California at the time but living in Boca Raton, could not come home as scheduled that
       week and instead should have his wife and children move and uproot instantly and
       virtually overnight to California until they could figure things out in Boca Raton, in order to
       protect Petitioner and his family from any harm.
367.   That Petitioner filed reports of the death threats made by Utley with the local California
       PD and the Huntington Beach FBI offices. Keep in mind that Petitioner when threatened
       by Utley was threatened by Utley who flew to California unannounced to deliver his

25
   Depositions of Rubenstein and Simon et al.
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Depositions%20BOOKMARKED%20SEARCHABLE%20with%20hyperlink%20comment
s.pdf
26
   2003 Statement Regarding Events - Simon L. Bernstein - Past Chairman of the Board lviewit
htt : iviewit.tv Com an Docs SHAREHOLDER%20STATEMENTS%20BOOKMARKED2 . df
       death threat message and stated he and the partners at the law firms of Proskauer and
       Foley, his friends, Dick and Wheeler, would harm his family and that Petitioner did not
       know how powerful these law firms were and better shut up and not bring the evidence
       of the patent thefts to the authorities or else watch his family's back or words to that
       effect.
368.   That Candice was directed by Simon to pack their family's belongings and ship them and
       get on the next plane with the two children, abandoning her home and leave Shirley and
       Simon with hardly a goodbye. All of this to the detriment of Shirley, who was furious that
       Petitioner was moving his children from her. Simon did not want Shirley to know what
       was going on with death threats, as her heart condition and cancer were too fragile at
       that time and Simon thought it was best to keep her in the dark and basically lie to her.
       Candice then packed and moved by herself with the kids to California and it was advised
       later that Petitioner and his family not return to Boca Raton and instead find a hideout to
       lay low in California until things could be resolved in a year or two.
369.   That to protect Shirley from a heart attack, a long and painful lie began, one of the first
       Petitioner had told his mother since he was a child, one that broke her heart anyway but
       the other way just might have killed her and the lie only got worse. Petitioner and his
       wife agreed with Simon to not tell Shirley any details of death threats and that Petitioner
       would tell her that he was moving suddenly to stay and open the California office of
       lviewit. Losing her two grandchildren overnight was enough to kill her, if she knew that
       death threats were made against Petitioner, Candice and her infant grandchildren,
       Simon rightfully feared she would panic to death literally. Shirley was angry at both
       Petitioner and Candice until much later when they moved back to Florida and she began
       figuring out what had really transpired and what was going on and when Simon finally
       allowed Petitioner to tell her the whole truth but only after she had been diagnosed with
       Stage IV cancer shortly before her death. Shirley was relieved to know the truth at last,
       years later, upset that we lied to her so much but forgiving.
370.   That Petitioner then moved back to Florida from California again, this time again due to
       his parents' medical problems worsening and to fight Proskauer in the Proskauer lawsuit
       in this Courthouse and at that time moved to Boynton Beach, FL.
371.   That Petitioner's relationship was strained during this move back as he was fighting
       Proskauer in this Courthouse and then elevated the complaints to the Florida Supreme
       Court and the United States Supreme Court. Each of these cases soon to appealed
       based on new evidence of Fraud On and In the courts, with documented evidence of
       corruption by Attorneys at Law blocking Petitioner's due process rights here in Florida
       and connected to those in New York. Thus why the RICO has so many Attorneys at
       Law, Judges and Public Officials as nearly half of the four thousand named defendants.
372.   That understanding how Petitioner was "targeted" and monitored and how government
       resources were turned against him to viola his due process rights through violations of
     ethics rules and laws by the very legal system designed to protect inventors is essential
     to understanding the strains on Petitioner and his entire extended family at that time.
373. That then suddenly and without warning, a bomb exploded in Petitioner's Minivan. As
     the images reveal a STRONG MESSAGE sent to anyone thinking of aiding Petitioner in
     his efforts in the courts or against the RICO Defendants, this time not merely a threat but
     an attempted murder, a scene out of a war zone, in Del Ray Beach, FL.
374. That once the CAR BOMBING occurred, Simon took many elaborate steps not only to
     protect Petitioner and his family but also to protect his entire extended family from the
     main culpable defendants in the RICO, as any father and grandfather would do. That
     Simon and Petitioner struggled with how to protect their families and decided after the
     bombing that it would be best that Petitioner distance himself from his immediate family
     and this would mean Petitioner having to severe personal and financial ties with his
     mother, father and siblings, while Simon and he and others tried to figure something out
     to keep their families from being MURDERED.
375. That this Court need stop for a moment and imagine in real time, real life what this would
     cause you personally to do, in order to protect your family, your friends, your businesses,
     etc. from this form of murderous retaliation.
376. That to put some distance between Petitioner and his family and friends, it was again
     decided that Petitioner and his family pack and move overnight, for the second time
     Petitioner fleeing Florida with his wife and children overnight.
377. That again, Shirley was blown apart, from the moment she heard Petitioner and family
     were leaving again with no notice and thought Petitioner needed and intervention or
     tough love and this too broke Petitioner and Candice's hearts to see her so saddened
     again .
378. That Simon from the instant of the lviewit companies being blown apart upon discovering
     the IP thefts and the monies stolen from the companies as reported to Boca PD and the
     SEC initially, had been supporting Petitioner and his family financially monthly but it was
     decided that all ties, personal and financial to family should be cut and so it was for
     everyone's safety. Simon again, immediately after the bombing, urged Petitioner and
     Candice to further lie to Shirley and keep the whole car bombing thing from reaching her
     if possible, as she was again ill and on chemotherapy and more and Petitioner complied
     as again it was too much for her.
379. That Simon and Petitioner parted ways and staged a fight over this or that and he stated
     he was done with Petitioner to everyone and vice versa and told Shirley and others we
     got in a fight and we were parting ways. Again, Shirley was crushed and angered at
     Petitioner and Candice and hardly spoke with them for the next two years. Other friends
     and family members from Candice's family aided Petitioner and his family from that point
     as best they could during the ensuing three y rs with houses, odd jobs, handouts and
     love.
380. That Petitioner's family moved to Red Bluff, California and moved in with Petitioner's
      mother-in-law, a one wonderful, Ginger Stanger and her daughter Amanda Leavitt. Four
     adults and three children in a 500 square foot apartment, one bath, two bedrooms and a
      long wait to shower for the next the three years.
381. That Petitioner severed financial ties with his father and his family immediately and went
     on public assistance, welfare and food stamps to survive. Not many jobs for persons
     being targeted by Car Bombs, not many friends will one keep, as Petitioner distanced
     himself not only from family but friends so as to expose no one to such wrath and danger
     to their families. Petitioner ceased talking with almost all of his friends that he spoke to
     regularly since childhood, all will attest such to this Court.
382. That Petitioner has warned every lawyer that touching lviewit would lead to assaults on
     their careers as Anderson now exposes how this scheme to target honest Attorneys at
      Law works from inside the belly of the beast in her historic testimony in Federal court
     where she identifies "The Cleaner" and Attorneys at Law in the highest ethics posts at
     the leading courts and prosecutorial offices violating law and obstructing justice and
     blackballing lawyers and more. The very same people that control bar admissions then
     even target any insider Whistleblowers with severe retaliation, in Anderson's case
     leading to physical assault by a Superior and then threats on a Federal Witness in her
     lawsuit against a one Nicole Corrado, Esq., yet another New York Supreme Court
     Supreme Court Disciplinary Attorney gone Whistleblower Hero on her way to testify at
     Anderson's trial. Corrado has recently filed yet another Federal action in the Eastern
     District of New York, again involving the same crew operating in the courts.
383. That in fact, Petitioner was notified by Yates, after she had spoken to Spallina initially,
     that Spallina had barked at her, as he has done repeatedly without courtesy, respect or
     professionalism on calls with Petitioner's and others that she did not "know who her
     client was" or words to that effect, in a condescending tone in reference to her
     representation of Petitioner and imparting that she should abandon representation of
     Petitioner. This perhaps explains Petitioner's Pro Se status in this Court due to his
     inability, despite repeated attempts from even referred Attorneys at Law to represent him
     here now before this Court and part of coordinated effort to deprive Petitioner of his
     rights to representation in any court, as exhibited in the ECG articles.
384. That in the already exhibited herein Motion for Rehearing, this Court will see how
     Petitioner's 5th Amendment Right to Counsel in these civil matters has wholly been
     interfered with to block any of the victims in the related cases to Anderson from help in
     the legal community and how those corrupted ethics bosses or mob bosses it appears,
     destroy the lives of those Good Intentioned Attorneys at Law trying to actually do their
     jobs ethically and fairly for their clients.
385. That Petitioner, having a long career in the insurance industry, with leading law firms and
     billionaires as his clients from the time he was 1, has many dear friends that are
     Attorneys at Law but whom he would never ask to put their lives and livelihoods in
     danger and make them targets too.
386. That these RICO Defendant LAW FIRMS are now under investigation in several ongoing
     actions involving the theft of the Intellectual Properties, including the investigations that
     have led to suspension of the IP with the US Patent Office pending the outcome of joint
     federal investigations. Therefore, all of the following law firms and other now involved in
     the Estates have Conflicts of Interests with the lviewit companies, Simon Bernstein,
     Petitioner and the Estates regarding the lviewit RICO, as defined below. All of these
     parties should be removed and precluded from any further involvement in this probate
     matter, other than to relinquish all records to this Court and Petitioner and replacement
     Personal Representatives and Successor Trustees, this time screened heavily in
     advance for conflicts of interests with any of the Defendants listed in the exhibited herein
     already Conflict of Interest Disclosure. For the following reasons,

     i. Proskauer has conflicts as,

              a. Former lviewit IP and corporate counsel,
              b. Former personal counsel to Simon and Petitioner,
              c. Shareholder of lviewit stock,
              d. Former estate counsel Albert Gortz did the estate planning work for Simon ,
                 Shirley, Petitioner, Trust of Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein and Jacob Noah
                 Archie Bernstein.
              e. Proskauer, Gortz et al. are Defendants in the RICO Lawsuit and under
                 investigation in State, Federal and International investigations,
              f. Proskauer claims not to have the missing 1995 llT described above whereby
                 Proskauer was the last law firm in possession of the trust in 2000-2001 and
                 this may be done with intent as further posited herein.
              g. That Proskauer Rose is at the heart of the RICO and Criminal Complaints
                 and has recently been accused of Conspiracy and Aiding and Abetting a
                 Criminal Enterprise, that of Convicted Felon, Ex-Sir Allen Stanford by the
                 US Court Appointed Receiver in that case.
              h. That Proskauer was patent counsel and corporate counsel to lviewit
                 companies and is accused of stealing the patents directly and as the initial
                 point of the ensuing decade of alleged Criminal Acts against Petitioner's
                 family.

     ii. Foley & Lardner/Hopkins & Sutter has conflicts as,

              a. Former lviewit IP Counsel,
              b. Foley et al. are Defendants in the RICO Lawsuit and under investigation in
                   State, Federal and lnternat~I ·';~estigalions,




                                           ·
                                           ."'°'
                 c. Wrote the original missing 1995 Insurance Trust described above that was
                    then transferred to Proskauer. Tripp Scott made written requests for the ITI
                    and other documents directly to Foley and as of this date they have not
                    received them.

     iii. Greenberg Traurig has conflicts as,

                 a. GT et al. are Defendants in the RICO Lawsuit and under investigation in
                    State, Federal and International investigations,
                 b. GT et al. are Defendants in the RICO Lawsuit and under investigation in
                    State, Federal and International investigations,
                 c. Counsel in RICO representing The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court,
                 d. Represented Theodore in the lawsuit by William Stansbury until GT was
                                                                                                  27
                    disqualified and withdrew for conflicts of interest in the Stansbury lawsuit.
                     and 28



     1v. Goldstein Lewin has conflicts as,

                 a. Former lviewit corporate accountant and Petitioner's personal accountant,
                 b. First person Simon introduced to lviewit IP, who introduced Simon and
                    Petitioner to Albert Gortz of Proskauer,
                 c. Party of interest in the Fed RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit, introduced Simon
                    and Petitioner to Proskauer's Gortz and Christopher Clarke Wheeler
                    ("Wheeler") who are the central conspirators in the RICO,
                 d. Shareholder with other Lewin family members of lviewit stock,
                 e. Simon and Shirley Bernstein accountant at some point in time after lviewit
                    companies were formed.

      v. Tescher and Spallina has conflicts as,

                 a. TS and Proskauer have close relations that are believed to have been
                    previously undisclosed to Simon,
                 b. TS has Board and business affiliations with Theodore Bernstein, including,
                          a. Ted and Deborah Bernstein Foundation 29


27
  "Greenberg Traurig Settles with Heller Estate for $5 Million" By Scott Graham, The Recorder, April 25, 2013
http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202597625743&Greenberg Traurig Settles with Heller Estate
for 5 Million&slreturn=20130328105328

28
  "Greenberg Traurig Grilled On Ties To Political Intel Firms" By Sindhu Sundar and Law 360 April 25, 2013
htt : www.law360.com articles 436050 reenber -trauri - rilled -on-ties-to- olitical-intel-firms
                               b. Aya Holdings, lnc. 30
                               c. That it should be noted here by this Court that TS, Spallina and
                                  T escher also have a very close new relationship whereby Donald
                                  Tescher was honored with an induction party to a very select
                                  "elitist" group, which was funded and promoted by RICO
                                  Defendant Proskauer. Information regarding this is found at the
                                  Jewish Federation site, in an article titled, "Caring Estate Planning
                                  Professionals to Honor Donald R. Tescher, Esq. at Mitzvah
                                  Society Reception on March 27" Published Sunday, March 4, 2012
                                  7:00 am I Category: PAC. That the article states 'The Mitzvah
                                  Society Cocktail Reception is generously sponsored by BNY
                                  Mellon Wealth Management; Law Offices of Tescher & Spallina,
                                  P.A.; Proskauer; and Life Audit Professionals, LLC," where the
                                  honoree was Donald T escher.
                                  Where it is clear from the article that RICO Defendant David Pratt
                                  of RICO Defendant Proskauer Rose is extremely close with
                                  Spallina and Tescher, claiming "It is my honor and privilege to
                                  welcome the community to join our annual Mitzvah Society
                                  Reception," said David Pratt, who is co-chairing the event with
                                  Robert Spallina ... We are also excited to inaugurate three new
                                  members: Jodi Lustgarten, Jon Sahn and Robert Spallina, bringing
                                  our Mitzvah Society ranks to a proud 55!"
                    d. TS is acting as Counsel for the Estates, Acting as Personal Representatives
                       for the Estates, Acting as Trustees in the Estates, Acting as Witness to
                       Documents that make changes giving authority and interest to TS, Tescher
                       and Spallina to act as personal representatives on documents they prepared
                       and had a client who was mentally depressed, confused and undergoing a
                       series of serious physical problems supposedly sign them but now appears
                       they may have fraudulently through forged signatures and more, signed the
                       documents for him post mortem,
                    e. Acting as Counsel in the SAMR to all parties in efforts to change
                       beneficiaries of the insurance policies of the Estates.

         ii. This Court



29
  Business Relation of TS, Tescher and Spallina as Directors of Ted and Deborah Bernstein Foundation
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Boca-Raton/ted-deborah-bernstein-family-foundation -inc/29100251.aspx

30
     Aya Holdings, Inc.
             a. That this Court is conflicted with Petitioner as it is also sued in the RICO and
                ANTITRUST Lawsuit, along with members of the Court and that members of
                this Court have been complained of in the State and Federal complaints.
             b. That Petitioner is willing to consider allowing members of this Court to parse
                such conflict with the RICO & ANTITRUST and continue adjudicating these
                matters and waive any conflict with the prior matters, if each person handling
                this probate of the Estates will sign and verify the attached Conflict of
                Interest Disclosure form attached as Exhibit 30, prior to ANY action.
                Presumably, if there are no Conflicts of Interest that will deny due process
                and obstruct justice in these matters, the COi should be a no brainer to sign
                by anyone acting forward in these matters.

387. That all of these alleged unlawful actions described herein, especially where the RICO
     defendants are involved may be done with scienter to throw the Estates of Simon and
     Shirley into a long and protracted time to distribution, during which time the assets are
     being misappropriated and depleted and incurring large legal costs. Petitioner alleges
     this is in order to prevent Petitioner from having access to his inheritance that could be
     used for living expenses for his immediate family and to deny him access to funds which
     could be used to assert his legal rights, for example by retaining counsel in the Estates
     actions and the RICO.
388. That the actions of TS, Spallina, Tescher, Theodore and others, already described
     herein have caused massive financial distress on Petitioner and his family, kept
     completely in the dark of the information to figure out their inheritance. That with the
     threats of foreclosure on Petitioner's children's home by Spallina these acts may be
     further evidence of ongoing RICO activity to further harm Petitioner, as is also being
     alleged as well in the Motion to Rehear in the US District Court case.
389. That these conspiratorial efforts alleged in this Petition act as possible further evidence
     of new alleged Criminal RICO activity through further Abuses of Legal Process in the
     Estates and more and appear to be an attempt to steal the estate assets of Simon and
     Shirley and deprive Petitioner of his inheritance entirely and leave him and his children
     homeless and broke in approximately the next 90 days or so.


XVI. THE ADVANCED INHERITANCE AGREEMENT ("AIA")

390. That the AIA was set up to fund the costs of living of Petitioner's family by Simon and
     Shirley and had been funded consistently since August 2007, providing USO 100,000.00
     annually. That each month health insurance and other home and living expenses of
     Petitioner's family were paid to various vend rs by Walker and in 2008, approximately
      USO $4,000.00 was deducted to pay back the loan on the home and the remainder was
      given to Petitioner.
391. That the AIA was set up to provide for these expenses but also as compensation for
      monies Petitioner lost when his sister Pamela took over the family businesses that he
      had worked in for approximately twenty years and began a long campaign of failing to
      pay commissions, over-rides to Petitioner and failure to honor a contract that also
      included a %% point lifetime commission on all premiums financed by any agent for the
      companies.
392. That the%% point was in exchange for Petitioner's not getting stock in the companies he
      helped build when Simon was selling the businesses to Pamela and so it was
      contracted. Petitioner was getting a continuing and life override on new business for his
      contributions to the business, a deal which was accepted by both parties but never
      honored when Pamela took control of the businesses.
393. That after several years with Pamela in charge of the family businesses, Petitioner after
      not getting paid according to contract, sent notice to Pamela and her husband David B.
      Simon, Esq. that he would notify clients and carriers of the approximately six million
      dollars owed of unpaid commissions that they refused to pay.
394. That to stop such contact with the carriers and the clients, STP Enterprises and David B.
      Simon sued Petitioner in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in
      and for Palm Beach Country, FL., Case# 50 2004A002166XXXXMB on February 22,
      2004 for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief and Damages.
395 . That Petitioner filed a Counter Complaint in Case# 50 2004A002166XXXXMB on March
      18, 2004 for Breach of Contract, Tortuous Interference in Business Relationships,
      Defamation, Civil Conspiracy, Injunctive Relief and Specific Relief. That similar to
      Stansbury's claims that Theodore was cashing checks made out directly to him, the
      counter complaint alleged that Pamela was converting checks of Petitioner's for renewal
      commissions and signing them into her accounts, a practice still believed to be ongoing
      as Petitioner has never received any renewals on his clients per the contracts and where
      the checks are sent to Pamela.
396. That the judge in the matter had reviewed the contracts and evidences presented by
      Petitioner and noticed the Counter Defendants in court that they should settle with
      Petitioner as it was clear that monies were owed from his review of the counter complaint
      and that he would not be dismissing the case prior to trial.
397. That Simon then got involved, as he had previously stayed on the sidelines in the matter,
      other than advising Petitioner to Counter Sue his sister and brother-in-law yet suddenly
      asked Petitioner to give up his counter complaint and that he would set aside the monies
      owed to him for the commissions and %% in his inheritance. Simon's motivation to end
      the suit was that the whole suit was causing Shirley and him emotional pain and she was
      medically very ill at that time and so Petitioner abandoned his claims and accepted
      Simon's promise and honored his wish and alked away from the claims and the millions
       of dollars owed. Petitioner at about that time was already working on establishing the
       lviewit companies and raised millions of dollars and walked away professionally and
       personally from Pamela and David since that time. Petitioner believes that this lawsuit
       may also have been part of the cause of the parting of ways for Simon and Shirley with
       Pamela and David, as many problems arose in business relations when Pamela and
       David took over and many of Simon's agents friends ceased working with them and were
       also upset with Simon over similar allegations of commissions being withheld and not
       paid.
398.   That Petitioner had since the agreement abandoned working in the companies he helped
       build and was the largest nationwide sales agent with Billionaire clients to boot31 and
       began working in various other occupations as he could no longer stand to work with
       Pamela and David.
399.   That Spallina, immediately after Simon's death had Walker continue the funding of the
       AIA to Petitioner's family monthly from bank accounts at Legacy Bank of Florida but then
       stated that until the monies in the Estates transferred to the grandchildren's trusts, that
       Petitioner should use monies from their already partially funded trust accounts to pay
       these expenses and directed Janet Craig of Oppenheimer to arrange these payments for
       living expenses.
400.   That Petitioner's family living expenses since that time have been paid by depleting the
       children's school trust accounts Petitioner then learned, which now have very little in
       them left for school, not even another semester and where Petitioner did not know
       Spallina had started to deplete school trusts for the payment through Oppenheimer, as
       Spallina directed Petitioner to send Craig the Legacy account checks that Walker had
       recently given Petitioner on Spallina's direction. Spallina told Walker to have Candice
       write checks from this Legacy Bank of Florida account and again Petitioner found it
       strange that Spallina would direct Candice to write checks out of a corporate account
       that she had never had any signatory power or knowledge of.
401.   That Petitioner would not allow Candice to write any checks until Legacy bank could
       verify and authorize such and Petitioner and Walker contracted Legacy to find out that
       not only had they never been notified of Simon's death but that Walker was not on the
       account in any way and in no way was authorized to have been writing checks from the
       account. That further Petitioner and Candice were not on the account and finally, that
       since Simon was dead they were closing the accounts.
402.   That Spallina was notified and Petitioner was told to send the Legacy account checks
       and information to Craig and she would now handle the payments. At no time did he tell
       us he was switching accounts to the childre 's school trust funds.




31
   1995 Eliot Bernstein Insurance Client Listing
ht tp://www.iviewit .tv/inventor/cl ientlisting.htm
403. That Spallina has recently sent notice that Petitioner and his wife would have to now
     report these funds as income, which he had never advised Petitioner of when making
     these arrangements.
404. That according to Simon, Spallina had instructions as how to keep the monthly amounts
     flowing to Petitioner and his family when he passed and stated there would be plenty of
     money to cover the expenses from the grandchildren's inheritance from the interests on
     the monies alone and that as Trustees of the children's trusts, Petitioner would be able to
     take out each month's expenses and Simon intended no interruption in these expenses
     being paid. Yet, according to Spallina he has not even set up the grandchildren's trusts
     under Simon's alleged 2012 Amended Trust and now claims there is no money left in the
     Estates to put in them.


XVII. ALLEGED MURDER OF SIMON BERNSTEIN


405. That this Court should note that despite allegations of Murder made by Petitioner's
      siblings and Walker and their request for Autopsy and a Sheriff's department
      investigation into alleged murder, that instead of Personal Representatives and others
      taking actions to preserve evidence and properly secure estate items, the Court will
      instead find the actions described herein to be quite the opposite of what should have
      happened in preserving evidences, protecting the estate assets and investigating
      accusations of murder.
406 . That the first thing that makes no sense in the accusations by Petitioner's siblings of
      murder by Puccio is that Puccio appeared to have no beneficial interest in the Estates of
      Simon and Shirley and thus no known motive or benefit for murder.
407. That later, after the Sheriff had left, Walker told Petitioner and Candice that in the
      Estates documents she removed from the home there was a check and an agreement
      Simon had executed for Puccio, that inured an estimated $100,000.00 to Puccio if Simon
      were to die, which Walker then removed both documents from the Estates and
      transferred them to Theodore the night of Simon's death, who then allegedly transferred
      them to Spallina a few weeks later, as already discussed herein.
408. That when the Sheriff came on September 13, 2012, despite Walker knowing of this
      document and Theodore knowingly in possession of the document, neither one of them
      mentions this document to the Sheriff's or turns it over as evidence of a possible motive
      that Puccio murdered Simon.
409. That on information and belief, Theodore turned the documents over to Spallina and
      despite Petitioner asking for an accounting of these documents for the Beneficiaries from
      Spallina, instead TS, Spallina and Theodore ave secreted them from the Beneficiaries
      and Interested Parties and the Sheriff.
410. That to Petitioner's knowledge the documents were never turned over to the Sheriff by
     TS, Theodore, Spallina or Walker, in effect Obstruction and Suppression of document
     that would appear material to any murder investigation as the damaging potential motive
     for Puccio to have murdered Simon.
411. That it should be noted that the documents were signed, according to Walker, on or
     about the time that Puccio had given Simon the Ambien days before his death when
     Puccio called Petitioner and Candice to come over to Simon's home as Simon was
     hallucinating and talking to his deceased mother and she feared he might be dying from
     the Ambien she gave him, as it was not a prescribed medicine by his physicians. The
     Puccio documents were being claimed later by Walker and Theodore to be the reason
     she might have murdered Simon, yet strangely neither had mentioned this to the
     Sheriff's.
412. That TS, Spallina, Tescher and Theodore, instead of turning this document over to the
     Sheriff as evidence and to prove a possible motive by Puccio, disregarded turning this
     vital evidence over to investigators or even mentioning it.
413. That instead of giving the documents to investigators, Spallina met with Puccio and her
     counsel denying her claim and telling her she would get nothing, opposite of Simon's
     desires and allegedly threatening her that she was a suspect in a murder investigation
     and should go away or else, further frightening Puccio who has since apparently
     abandoned her claim against the estate. NO INFORMATION REGARDING THIS CLAIM
     AGAINST THE ESTATE HAS BEEN SENT BY TS, SPALLINA AND TESCHER TO THE
     BENEFICIARIES.
414. That on information and belief, Puccio retained counsel that contacted Spallina but after
     hearing they were accusing her of murder she decided to drop her claim in fear of
     retaliation.
415. That this Court should notify the appropriate authorities of the alleged murder of Simon
     and the new exhibited Prima Facie evidence of alleged criminal activity in and upon this
     Court, as certain elements of the alleged crimes of fraud, forgery, obstruction, tampering
     with evidence and more now show absolute cause for further investigation of potential
     "foul play" in the Estates and may establish further suspects and motives than originally
     reported to the Sheriff and Coroner for murder.
416. That any murder investigation of Simon should include the lviewit companies as a
     possible motive as it remains the largest potential asset in the Estates and certainly for
     the dollar amounts estimated upon licensing there are Trillions of motives.
417. That an inquest should be conducted into th deaths of both Simon and Shirley due to
     the circumstances described herein.
XVIII.LACK OF DUTY AND CARE BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, TRUSTEES
      AND ESTATE COUNSEL, CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY
      DUTIES AND MORE


418. That Petitioner does not know what legal language was changed from the 2008 Simon
     Trust that Simon and Shirley completed together, to the new near deathbed alleged 2012
     Amended Trust Simon allegedly signed weeks before his death in a confused state of
     mind, as TS, Tescher and Spallina, despite repeated written and oral requests, have
     refused to turn over the Original 2008 Simon Trust to Petitioner or Tripp Scott, along with
     other relevant documents, evidencing a lack of duty and care to the Beneficiaries and
     breach of fiduciary responsibilities and more.
419. That Theodore acting in a capacity designated by TS as a Successor Trustee/Personal
     Representative under Shirley's 2008 Trust, removed from the home valuables, including
     jewelry of Simon and Shirley's that were in a locked safe in his home with all paperwork
     and items in the safe, in violation of his fiduciary duties and failing to provide proper
     notice for items removed.
420. That Theodore, after contracting to have the safe opened by a locksmith was to turn the
     contents of the safe and other documents contained therein over to Spallina immediately
     for accounting and inventory to the Beneficiaries of the items but at this time there has
     been no accounting by TS or Theodore to the Beneficiaries of these items removed by
     Theodore or any indication of who is now in possession of these items, evidencing a lack
     of duty and care for the Beneficiaries and a breach of fiduciary responsibilities and more.
421. That Petitioner has learned recently that there is now a dispute between certain siblings
     and Theodore as to what was removed and the value of the items as no inventories have
     been provided since the time of removal by TS or Theodore, evidencing a lack of duty
     and care for the Beneficiaries and a breach of fiduciary responsibilities and more.
422. That upon meeting with Tescher and Spallina after Simon's death to discuss the Estates,
     Petitioner again asked for all the documents, accountings and inventories for the Estates
     and Spallina again agreed to send them but again never sent any of them to Petitioner,
     evidencing a lack of duty and care for the Beneficiaries and a breach of fiduciary
     responsibilities and more.
423. That the documents and other items removed from the Estates after Simon's death by
     Walker have never been accounted for or inventoried and Petitioner is unsure of who is
     now in possession of these items, evidencing a lack of duty and care for the
     Beneficiaries and a breach of fiduciary responsibilities and more.
424. That the personal effects of Shirley's removed from the home by Petitioner's sisters have
     not been accounted for or inventories sent to the Beneficiaries and Petitioner does not
     know who is currently in possession of these items, evidencing a lack of duty and care
                                            ~:· · re~§~nsibilities and more.
     for the Beneficiaries and a breach of:~~   .
425. That for several months after Simon's death Spallina told Petitioner repeatedly that he
     would get the Estates documents to him and the other Beneficiaries and Trustees but
     then in a family call with Spallina he claimed suddenly and angrily in an "about face" that
     Petitioner was not entitled to any documents, as Petitioner was not a Beneficiary of
     either parent's estate and therefore had no rights to them. Spallina directed Petitioner to
     obtain what was in the public record at this Court instead. That Spallina misinforming
     Petitioner that he was not entitled to any documentation of the Estates, even as Trustee
     and Guardian for his children who under the alleged 2012 Amended Trust are
     Beneficiaries, evidences a lack of duty and care for the Beneficiaries and a breach of
     fiduciary responsibilities and more.
426. That the llT designating Beneficiaries of a life insurance policy and the insurance policy
     underlying it are now missing according to TS, Spallina, Theodore and Pamela who have
     claimed to have looked for these missing items and after several attempts to get any of
     the insurance documents, Petitioner was instead met with hostility from Spallina, as
     evidenced in the correspondences already exhibited herein. These missing documents
     evidence a lack of duty and care for the Beneficiaries and a breach of fiduciary
     responsibilities and more.


XIX. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, ESTATE
     COUNSEL AND TRUSTEES DISCOVERED


427. That Tescher, Spallina and Theodore at no time informed the Beneficiaries or the
     Trustees that they are directors and all sit on a board together of Theodore's foundation ,
     The Ted and Deborah Bernstein Foundation .
428. That Tescher, Spallina and Theodore at no time informed the Beneficiaries or the
     Trustees that they were part of a company AYA together, causing conflict.
429. That upon information and belief, Petitioner has learned that TS, Tescher and Spallina
     have been conducting business with Theodore for several years, each referring business
     to each other and making splits on referrals, splitting either legal client fees sent to TS by
     Theodore or Insurance Commissions from clients referred to Theodore by TS for
     insurance sales. These conflicts of interest were also never disclosed to the
     Beneficiaries and Interested Parties.
430. That TS appointing Theodore as a Personal Representative or Successor Trustee and
     assigning him roles in both Estates appears invalid and conflicted. Theodore also has
     never been approved or filed for any such authority to act in any capacity with this Court
     or taken oath. That Theodore acting in this capacity is wholly contrary to the wishes,
     desires and terms under the Wills and Trusts of Simon.
431. That despite Theodore's total lack of beneficial interest in the Estates, the anointment of
     him by TS in such capacity appears t: ..•b"l;.nflicted in light of their other undisclosed




                                            "'7
      conflicts, which may have been the reason for TS choosing Theodore in these
      capacities. This opportunity given to Theodore allows for self-dealing in conflict with the
      Estates and Beneficiaries, including his own children, as evidenced in the proposed
      SAMR scheme, the Stansbury Lawsuit and more.
432 . That as of this date TS, Tescher, Spallina and Theodore, have failed to disclose their
      business relations together to the Beneficiaries or the Trustees.
433. That it appears that Spallina was a very good friend and very close business associate of
      Theodore and despite knowing that Simon had wanted Theodore to have no involvement
      in the administration of the Estates and inheritances of others he instead gives him total
      and absolute control and works together with him against the interest of Petitioner, Jill
      and Lisa.
434. That since acting as Personal Representative Spallina has gone wholly against the
      desires and wishes of Simon and Shirley in a multiplicity of ways. Since Simon's passing
      both Spallina and Theodore have acted to hurt those Simon and Shirley loved and
      adorned, including but not limited to, Puccio, Walker, Banks, S. Banks, Petitioner's
      family, Lisa and Jill and their children and others. That Spallina acting mostly with
      Theodore have acted together to,

      1.   threaten and throw out on the street Simon's companion and girlfriend Puccio on the
           night Simon passed, deny her access to personal effects for some time until she
           contacted the PD, threaten her with a murder investigation if she did not abandon her
           claim against the Estates and scared her from attending the funeral and more,
     ii.   shut down business ventures with S. Banks and Telenet destroying Simon's close
           personal friends and leaving them saddled with large debts incurred ,
    iii.   fired and gave no benefits to Simon's long time personal business secretary Banks
           leaving her unemployed overnight,
    iv.    fired and gave no benefits to Walker, Shirley's and then Simon's personal assistant
           leaving her unemployed overnight,
     v.    have shut down Beneficiaries of virtually all documents necessary to evaluate their
           claims, denied them to any rights of their, inheritances and treated Beneficiaries
           unfairly and unjustly through a pattern and practice of lies and deceit and alleged
           criminal acts.

435. That it appears that TS, Tescher and Spallina have been working exclusively with
     Theodore, Pamela and David and sharing information and documents with them to make
     all kinds of decisions and craft new documents converting monies to themselves outside
     the Estates and rightful Beneficiaries and all the while denying Lisa, Jill, Petitioner and
     Petitioner's counsel even the basic necessary documents, inventories, etc. to assess
     their interests for themselves and as Trustees of the Beneficiaries, all contrary, and in
     fact, wholly opposite of the intents and desi es of Simon and Shirley and their contractual
                                                   l   '.,;_
     Estates Plans. Where it appears further, through Forgery and Fraud that Spallina is
     working in adverse interests to the Beneficiaries with bad intent that compel him to
     create a Fraud on this Court through alleged Felonious acts utilizing Fraudulent
     documents and all it appears to the benefit of mainly Theodore, who was cut out of the
     Estates.
436. That Petitioner again begs the Court take pause and understand that under the
     circumstances expressed herein everybody's lives changed when these inventions were
     discovered, then again when these crimes were discovered and exposed and then again
     when a Car Bomb went off and now when they have learned they are "targets" having
     their lives and privacy wholly violated with no protections and well, Petitioner casts no
     stones in judging anyone without fully understanding these unique situations. For
     example, it may appear that Theodore or Pamela are the cause of certain activities
     alleged herein and they may in fact be but the question is what has motivated them, are
     there guns to their heads or to their children's heads, have they been threatened or
     extorted or bribed for misdeeds and then ask what you and your family would do under
     similar circumstances. Then, finally, look at who has caused these stressors on so many
     innocent lives, the RICO defendants again and again, where yes, it may at first glance
     appear that Simon and Shirley had messed up children or family dysfunction and they
     are doing things one cannot believe at first as described herein but when you add the
     factors described herein to any family you begin to understand that each person is
     scared for both their life and their families lives and these are very real events and thus
     may be motivation for many of the actions described herein. Again, what would you do if
     someone had a proverbial gun, or car bomb, to your grandchildren's head?


XX.    ARGUMENTS


       5. Removal of Personal Representative

                  i. Relevant law

      733.504 Removal of personal representative; causes for removal.-A personal
      representative may be removed and the letters revoked for any of the following causes,
      and the removal shall be in addition to any penalties prescribed by law:


       (1) Adjudication that the personal representative is incapacitated.
       (2) Physical or mental incapacity rendering the personal representative
       incapable of the discharge of his or her duties.
       (3) Failure to comply with any order of the ourt, unless the order has
       been superseded on appeal.

                                                     •       ,.   •...!.'




                                                     .
                                                     "·'
                                                         '
 (4) Failure to account for the sale of property or to produce and exhibit
 the assets of the Estates when so required.
 (5) Wasting or maladministration of the Estates.
 (6) Failure to give bond or security for any purpose.
 (7) Conviction of a felony.
 (8) Insolvency of, or the appointment of a receiver or liquidator for, any
 corporate personal representative.
 (9) Holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the
 Estates that will or may interfere with the administration of the Estates as
 a whole. This cause of removal shall not apply to the surviving spouse
 because of the exercise of the right to the elective share, family
 allowance, or exemptions, as provided elsewhere in this code.
 (10) Revocation of the probate of the decedent's will that authorized or
 designated the appointment of the personal representative.
 (11) Removal of domicile from Florida, if domicile was a requirement of
 initial appointment.
 (12) The personal representative would not now be entitled to
 appointment.

Fla. Stat. ch. 733.504 authorizes the removal of a personal representative and trustee of
an estate if sufficient grounds for removal are shown. In re Estate of Moe Senz, 417 So.
2d 325, Fla. App. LEXIS 21159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). In the case of In re Estate of
Moe Senz, the Florida Court of Appeals for fourth district reversed the judgment of lower
court stating that holding that there was sufficient evidence of numerous instances of
mismanagement of the estate by appellees nephew and lawyer, which justified granting
appellant widow and beneficiaries's petition for removal as personal representatives and
trustees and the matter was remanded with directions to grant appellants' petition for
removal of representative.

According to Fla. Stat. ch . 733.504(9) , a personal representative may be removed for
holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate which will
adversely interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole. In re Estate of
Bell, 573 So. 2d 57, 59, Fla. App. LEXIS 9651(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

           ii. Discussion

In this case there is clear mismanagement by Personal Representatives and they are
also holding conflicting/ adverse interests against the Estates. Hence they should be
removed. Moreover they have also failed to produce or exhibit assets when required to
do so and submitted forged and fraudulent documents to this Court and others.

 6. Personal Representatives are liable or damages and loss to Petitioner:
            i. Relevant law

733.609   Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary duty.-

 (1) A personal representative's fiduciary duty is the same as the
 fiduciary duty of a trustee of an express trust, and a personal
 representative is liable to interested persons for damage or loss resulting
 from the breach of this duty. In all actions for breach of fiduciary duty or
 challenging the exercise of or failure to exercise a personal
 representative's powers, the court shall award taxable costs as in
 chancery actions, including attorney's fees.

 (2) When awarding taxable costs, including attorney's fees, under this
 section, the court in its discretion may direct payment from a party's
 interest, if any, in the Estates or enter a judgment which may be satisfied
 from other property of the party, or both.

 (3) This section shall apply to all proceedings commenced hereunder
 after the effective date, without regard to the date of the decedent's
 death.

If the exercise of power concerning the estate is improper or in bad faith, the personal
representative is liable to interested persons for damage or loss resulting from
a breach of his fiduciary duty to the same extent as a trustee of an express trust. In all
actions challenging the proper exercise of a personal representative's powers, the court
shall award taxable costs as in chancery actions, including attorney's fees. Fla . Stat.
ch . 733.609(1993). Landon v. Isler, 681 So. 2d 755, *756, Fla. App. LEXIS 9138 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

If the personal representative breaches his fiduciary duty, he may be liable to the
interested persons for damage or loss resulting from that breach . McDonald v. Mauriello
(In re Estate of Wejanowski), 920 So. 2d 190, *191, Fla. App. LEXIS 1804 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 2006) .                                                                "

Under Florida law, an estate's personal representative has the same fiduciary duty as a
trustee of an express trust. See Fla . Stat.§ 733 .609(1). That standard is one of
reasonable care and caution. See Fla. Stat. § 518.11 (1 )(a) (referenced by Fla . Stat. §
737 .302); see also State v. Lahurd. 632 So. 2d 1101 . 1104 (Fla . Dist. Ct. App.
1994); Estate of Rosenthal 189 So. 2d 507 508 Fla. Dist. Ct. A . 1966 .

            ii. Discussion
In this case the Personal Representatives have breached their fiduciary duty by
exercising their power concerning the Estates in improper manner and in bad faith.
Hence, they are liable to interested persons for damage or loss resulting from
a Breach of his Fiduciary Duty and the Court has to award taxable costs including
attorney's fees and other costs.

 7. Will of Simon is void as it was procured by fraud, duress and undue
    influence. The portion of the Amended Trust procured by fraud is void. The
    Estate of Shirley was improperly closed due to forgery and fraud in the
    Waivers.

             i. Relevant law

732.5165 Effect of fraud, duress, mistake, and undue influence.-A will is void if
the execution is procured by fraud, duress, mistake, or undue influence. Any part of the
will is void if so procured, but the remainder of the will not so procured shall be valid if it
is not invalid for other reasons. If the revocation of a will, or any part thereof, is procured
by fraud, duress, mistake, or undue influence, such revocation is void.

Fla. Stat. ch. 732.5165 (1995) provides that a will is void if the execution is procured by
fraud, duress, mistake, or undue influence. Any part of the will is void if so procured, but
the remainder of the will not so procured shall be valid if it is not invalid for other reasons.
Am. Red Cross v. Estate of Haynsworth, 708 So. 2d 602, Fla. App. LEXIS 1361 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 1998). In the case of Id., Am. Red Cross v. Estate of Haynsworth the court
held that the order admitting the later written will into probate should be vacated and the
earlier written will should be admitted. Niece, as proponent for the later written will, failed
to meet her burden of establishing, by competent and substantive evidence, that
decedent was competent at the time he executed the later written will.

In order to constitute a sound disposing mind, a testator must not only be able to
understand that he is by his will giving the whole of his property to one object of his
regard, but that he must also have capacity to comprehend the extent of his property. Id.,
Am. Red Cross v. Estate of Haynsworth.

In id Am. Red Cross v. Estate of Haynsworth a personal representative was beneficiary,
had confidential relationship with testator, and failed to prove she was not active in
procuring will, she did not show that presumption of undue influence had not arisen.
Therefore, contestant's petition to revoke probate under § 732 .5165 , Fla . Stat. , should
not have been dismissed on summary judg ent.
A will--or a portion thereof--procured by undue influence is void.§ 732.5165, Fla.
Stat. (2005). Undue influence comprehends overpersuasion, coercion, or force that
destroys or hampers the free agency and will power of the testator. RBC Ministries v.
Tompkins, 974 So. 2d 569, *571, Fla. App. LEXIS 2029 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008), If a
substantial beneficiary under a will occupies a confidential relationship with the testator
and is active in procuring the contested will, the presumption of undue influence arises.
The Florida Supreme Court has provided the following nonexclusive list of criteria which
are relevant to determining whether a beneficiary has been active in procuring a will: (a)
presence of the beneficiary at the execution of the will; (b) presence of the beneficiary on
those occasions when the testator expressed a desire to make a will; (c)
recommendation by the beneficiary of an attorney to draw the will; (d) knowledge of the
contents of the will by the beneficiary prior to execution; (e) giving of instructions on
preparation of the will by the beneficiary to the attorney drawing the will; (f) securing of
witnesses to the will by the beneficiary; and (g) safekeeping of the will by the beneficiary
subsequent to execution. Will contestants are not required to prove all the listed criteria
to show active procurement. Indeed, it will be the rare case in which all the criteria will be
present. Id RBC Ministries v. Tompkins,

The rebuttable presumption of undue influence implements public policy against abuse
of fiduciary or confidential relationships and is therefore a presumption shifting the
burden of proof. § 733 .107(2). Fla. Stat. (2005). Such a presumption affecting the burden
of proof--as distinct from a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence--
imposes upon the party against whom it operates the burden of proof concerning the
nonexistence of the presumed fact. § 90.302(2) , Fla . Stat. (2005). Accordingly, once a
will contestant establishes the existence of the basis for the rebuttable presumption of
undue influence, the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of the will to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence the nonexistence of undue influence. Id RBC Ministries
v. Tompkins

Once the presumption of undue influence arises, the issue cannot be determined in a
summary judgment proceeding. A summary judgment cannot be entered in favor of one
who has the burden of overcoming the presumption of undue influence for such
proceeding does not afford the contesting party the right of cross-examination and an
opportunity to present rebuttal testimony. Instead, the proponent of the contested will
must come forward with a reasonable explanation of his active role in the decedent's
affairs, and the trial court is left to decide the case in accordance with the greater weight
of the evidence. Id RBC Ministries v. Tom k·. s
                                         z n

            ii. Discussion
In this case the near deathbed Will and alleged 2012 Amended Trust by Simon has been
procured by fraud, duress and undue influence. Obtained when Simon was in bad
health and heavily medicated and was not competent to execute the Will or Trusts.
Hence they are void. No evidence has been produced to show that alleged 2012
Amended Trust was procured without undue influence. Hence it cannot be accepted.
The portion of trust that was obtained by fraud is void. In this case Theodore who is not
the beneficiary under a will for reason that place him with adverse interests to the
Beneficiaries is active in procuring the contested will, the presumption of undue influence
arises and the burden of proof shifts to him to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence the nonexistence of undue influence. In absence of such evidence the Will and
Trust executed by Simon is void.

 8. To construe this Pro Se motion liberally:

            i. Relevant Law:

Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Section 342, FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. 1, ch .20,
1789 states that:
"Pleadings of the Plaintiff SHALL NOT BE dismissed for lack of form or failure of
process. All the pleadings are as any reasonable man/woman would understand, and:

"'And be it further enacted. That no summons, writ, declaration, return, process,
judgment, or other proceedings in civil cases in any of the courts or the United States,
shall be abated, arrested, quashed or reversed, for any defect or want of form, but the
said courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the
cause and matter in law shall appear unto them, without regarding any imperfections,
defects or want of form in such writ, declaration, or other pleading, returns process,
judgment, or course of proceeding whatsoever, except those only in cases of demurrer,
which the party demurring shall specially sit down and express together with his
demurrer as the cause thereof. And the said courtsively shall and may, by virtue of this
act, from time to time, amend all and every such imperfections, defects and wants of
form, other than those only which the party demurring shall express as aforesaid, and
may at any, time, permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process of
pleadings upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion,
and by their rules prescribe (a)"'

Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are
deficient and how to repair pleadings. Plaske v CIA, 953 F .2nd 25
       It is settled law that the allegations of such a complaint, "however inartfully pleaded" are
       held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v.
       Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 86 (CA?
       1980); French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994, 996 (CA? 1976); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.97,
       106 (1976). Such a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless
       it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
       which would entitle him to relief. Haines, supra, at 520-521. And, of course, the
       allegations of the complaint are generally taken as true for purposes of a motion to
       dismiss. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).

       Recognizing that transsubstantive pleading standards do not sufficiently account for the
       capability differential between represented and unrepresented litigants, the Supreme
       Court fashioned a rule of special solicitude for pro se pleadings. See Robert Bacharach
       & Lyn Entzeroth, Judicial Advocacy in Pro Se Litigation: A Return to Neutrality, 42 IND.
       L.REV. 19, 22-26 (2009)

       The Court granted such leniency, or "liberal construction," to prose pleadings against the
       backdrop of Conley v. Gibson's undemanding "no set of facts" standard. See Conley v.
       Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to
       state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
       support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.", abrogated by Bell At/. Corp. v.
       Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561-63 (2007). This standard epitomized the notice-pleading
       regime envisioned by the drafters of the Federal Rules, who emphasized discovery as
       the stage at which a claim's true merit would come to light, rather than pleading. See
       Christopher M. Fairman, The Myth of Notice Pleading, 45 ARIZ. L. REV. 987, 990
       (2003).

                   ii. Discussion:

       In this action, the Petitioner appears Pro se. Hence, this motion should be construed
       liberally. It should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. It should be decided on
       true merit, rather than pleading. Prose Petitioner is afraid for the life of his family and his
       extended families lives based on the evidences herein exhibited, hurried due to sales of
       assets without notices, etc. and files this unable to retain personal counsel timely and
       seeks leave to amend this Petition when prop counsel can be obtained.


XXI.     CONCLUSION
    For the reasons set forth in detail herein, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court,
    in the interest of Justice to remove the Personal Representatives, to direct Personal
    Representatives pay for damages and loss to Petitioner, to declare Will of Simon void as
    it was procured by fraud, duress and undue influence and also the portion of amended
    trust procured by fraud as void, to construe this motion and pleading of Petitioner
    liberally as being filed Pro Se and to grant reliefs claimed below and such other reliefs as
    this Court deems fit.


XXII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


   WHEREFORE,

   Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:


1. Determine who should pay legal and other related costs for Petitioner and Petitioner's
   children. That the lack of duty and care to the Beneficiaries and the procuring of Forged
   and Felonious documentation to this Court by TS, Spallina and Tescher, now demand
   legal counsel be retained by the Beneficiaries to evaluate these problems that are wholly
   caused by violations of Fiduciary Responsibilities and Law. That Tripp Scott's bill thus far
   for Petitioner's children, Exhibit 31 - Tripp Scott Bill is already approximately USO
   $10,000.00 and most of this expense has been trying to get TS to turn over the
   documents to beneficiaries and examine the effects of TS's document forgeries, etc. on
   the beneficiaries.
2. Determine who should pay for Petitioner's personal representation, where initially he was
   claimed not to be a Beneficiary by TS and Spallina under the Estates. That this counsel
   is necessary in part in order to analyze the new proposed Beneficial interests under the
   SAMR that conflict Petitioner with his children. That a whopping retainer of USO
   $25,000.00 has been asked by one Attorney at Law contacted to handle Simon's estate
   and another USO $25,000.00 for Shirley's due the complexities already caused by TS's
   failures and more, see Exhibit 32 - Legal Service Retainer Letter. Over a dozen other
   law firms and Attorneys at Law have refused to take the case in entirety, possibly for
   reasons already discussed herein relating to the lviewit and Anderson federal lawsuits
   and the blocks on Petitioner's right to due process and coordinated efforts to preclude him
   from obtaining counsel by those in charge of Disciplinary Regulation in the states of
   Florida, New York and Virginia, as now new evidence further confirms.
3. Determine emergency distributions to Beneficiaries and Petitioner for support as NO
   distributions of the Estates has been made and Petitioner believes that TS has purposely
   and with scienter caused these hardships on etitioner for purposes already described
   herein.
4. Determine why monies from Petitioner's children's education trust funds are being
   depleted by TS, where monies to provide for Petitioner's family were provided for in the
   trusts of the grandchildren of Simon and Shirley upon their deaths to be used instead and
   determine if those monies should be paid back to those trusts. That TS has forced the
   children to expend their school fund trust accounts to maintain the costs of the home they
   live in and purchased and other expenses of Petitioner and his family that were being
   paid for through other means prior to Simon's death through a non-trust account at
   Legacy Bank of Florida. That Simon was paying for the home bills of the Petitioner and
   Candice Children's home through funding the AIA, already established trusts and other
   means and TS has failed to establish even the trusts that were to be created under the
   alleged 2012 Amended Trust in the Estates that were to be funded by estate assets in
   order to continue these ongoing costs of living for Petitioner's family without disruption, as
   was the intent of Simon and Shirley. That TS advised Craig at Oppenheimer to take
   funds from the children's school trusts, which Petitioner did not know were trust funds set
   aside for their lower and high school tuitions and use those monies to cover the home
   expenses Simon and Shirley had been paying for several years out of other accounts.
   That on April 12, 2013 TS and Spallina advised Petitioner that the monies taken from the
   trusts since Simon's passing and used for home and school expenses of the children,
   was taxable to Petitioner.
5. This Court demand that TS turn over paperwork on a gift to Simon's grandson Joshua.
   Spallina refuses to release a birthday gift, a 2013 Kia paid for in full, given to Petitioner's
   son Joshua from his grandfather Simon. This gift was transacted to Joshua two weeks
   before Simon's passing on August 27, 2012 at Joshua's birthday party at Simon's home
   as he had just got his driver's license. Despite full knowledge of this gift TS refuses to
   release the paperwork necessary to renew the registration properly in Joshua's name as
   was intended by Simon and which was being processed by Simon prior to his death. The
   car has remained in Joshua's possession for seven months unable to be driven due to the
   inability to properly register the car due to Spallina's lack of care and duty and
   suppression of the title from the proper owner, Joshua.
6. This Court immediately remove TS, Spallina, Tescher, Theodore, Pamela and David from
   all fiduciary responsibilities in all capacities until this Court and criminal authorities can
   assess the forged and fraudulent documents submitted to this Court and other alleged
   crimes committed by TS that constitute a Fraud on the Court and Fraud on the
   Beneficiaries, etc. and disqualify those involved instantly from any of the Estates matters.
7. This Court has legal obligations to report the alleged FELONY misconduct evidenced
   herein of forgery and fraudulent documents to the proper authorities and is also bound
   under Judicial and Legal Cannons to so report any alleged misconduct by another
   Attorney at Law to proper criminal authorities nd state bar associations .


                                                      .   ''-'.
8. This court removes Theodore from any and all involvement in the handling of the Estates
   assets and acting in any capacity and demand records regarding any all activities to date.
   That Theodore does not have standing or a basis in the Estates for the following reasons,

     1.   he has been wholly excluded under the estates of both Simon and Shirley due to gifts
          during their lifetime and therefore has no beneficial interest in the Estates,
      ii. he has conflicting interests as Trustee for his children's trusts under the Estates,
     111. he now has a possible beneficial interest in the SAMR that conflicts with the
          Beneficiaries of the Estates,
     iv. he has a conflicting interest with the Beneficiaries of the Estates involving the
          outcome of the Stansbury lawsuit as he is the central defendant and has
          considerable personal risks,
      v. this Court has not approved Theodore as a Personal Representative, nor has he
          submitted any papers to the Court to be appointed in this or any role,
     vi. any appointment by TS of Theodore is conflicted due to, Tescher and Spallina's
          undisclosed Board position with Theodore's company, their undisclosed ongoing
          business relationships and such conflicts would not be waived by Petitioner if they
          had been disclosed.
9. This Court demand a full accounting of the Estates, including all business and personal
    records, all interests of Simon and Shirley, including any jewelry, art, businesses, etc. that
    Theodore or anyone is in possession of or has removed from the Estates without proper
    authority or accounting. That these assets be fully accounted for, frozen and turned over
    to this Court until new counsel can be appointed to represent the Estates and
    Beneficiaries.
10. This Court issue an order to have the Estate advance the costs of school and monthly
    living expenses for Petitioner from assets of the Estate and further grant declaratory
    judgment that the Balloon Mortgage on the home of Petitioner's children at 2753 NW 34th
    Street, Boca Raton, FL 33434 be rendered unenforceable.
11. This Court may Issue and Order for relief under RULE 5.407. PROCEEDINGS TO
    DETERMINE FAMILY ALLOWANCE for $100,000 annually to be divided equally amongst
    Petitioner and Candice Bernstein based upon the AIA and additional funds for their
    children that were being provided monthly over several years, after review by this Court of
    what Simon had been paying in expenses in total for the survival of Petitioner and his
    family under the set of circumstances described herein regarding the RICO lawsuit, car
    bombs, etc ...
12. This Court is petitioned herein for immediate Interim Judicial Review.
13. This Court halt any sales, pending sales or listings of any of the Estates assets until the
    true and proper beneficiaries are ascertained and retrieve any items that may have been
    sold. That Petitioner has been informed that roperties are being sold behind his back by
    Theodore, Pamela and Spallina and without otifying other Beneficiaries properly of the
    sales, prices, etc. and where Petitioner expressly noted Spallina to not take any actions
    without notice to Petitioner and Petitioner's children's counsel Tripp Scott.
14. This Court secure all documents prepared by TS, Spallina, Tescher, Proskauer Rose,
    Foley & Lardner/Hopkins Sutter, Gerald R. Lewin, Goldstein Lewin/ CBIZ MHM, LLC,
    Pamela, David, David B. Simon Law Firm, Stansbury and Theodore filed in the Estates or
    any other documents in their possession regarding Simon and Shirley, which all should
    now be analyzed and verified for further evidence of fraud, forgery and false and deficient
    notarizations or any other improper markings, etc.
15. This Court secure all records of all notaries to determine possible other fraud in the
    Estates. That the employers of all notaries' records also be obtained to determine
    evidence of validity, as these employers are alleged to have employed the notaries and
    supervised them in the alleged unlawful acts.
16. This Court should demand all Simon and Shirley's insurance records from any carrier in
    the last 10 years , including but not limited to, insurance trusts, life policies, disability
    policies, homeowners policies, etc. and demand them sent to this Court, as Tripp Scott
    and Petitioner have been unable to obtain copies from any of the parties that maintain or
    maintained these records, after repeated requests.
17. This Court should demand the law firms Proskauer, Foley and GT's records regarding the
    Estates or any records pertaining to Petitioner, Simon and Shirley, lviewit and any other
    party named herein that they have records on concerning the Estates and that these
    documents be immediately turned over to this Court for analysis of further probable fraud,
    forgery and more and for furtherance to the proper criminal authorities for investigations.
18. This Court should demand the accounting firm of Goldstein Lewin produce all records
    regarding the Estates or any records pertaining to Petitioner, Simon, Shirley and lviewit
    and any other person or company named herein they have records of and that these
    documents be immediately turned over to this Court for analysis of further probable fraud,
    forgery and more.
19. This Court needs to determine if the Estates of Simon and Shirley will remain as they
    were prior to the deathbed alleged 2012 Amended Trust changes and 2012 Will of Simon
    both that were executed only weeks before Simon passed away, under extreme duress
    and major medical health problems affecting his psychological stability and further
    executed with documents which were not properly signed or completed lawfully and rule
    whether these new documents, including those already evidenced herein as Fraudulent
    and Forged, fail. If they fail, this Court must then decide if the Estates revert to the prior
    established 2008 Trust documents that Simon and Shirley finalized together and that
    were in place for years before the near deathbed changes or what will happen. These
    decisions of this Court will now materially affect who the Beneficiaries, Trustees, Personal
    Representatives, etc. actually are and what interests they have and without such rulings
    these Estates cannot be further adjudicated roperly and have put several of the
    Beneficiaries lives into crisis.
20. Petitioner seeks leave to Amend this Pro Se Petition once it can be determined by this
    Court the effect of these alleged crimes and who therefore should pay these legal and
    other costs now involved to address the issues of alleged Fraud on the Court, Fraud in
    the estates of both Simon and Shirley, Forgery, Failure of Fiduciary responsibilities by
    Personal Representatives to allegedly commit felony criminal acts and if Criminal
    Prosecutors will simultaneously be forged into the proceedings by an order of this Court.
21. This Petition was filed under tremendous stress and while Petitioner is undergoing a
    several year Facial Reconstruction requiring medications, in order to notify this Court
    instantly of the alleged crimes discovered and how they may relate to the alleged murder
    of Simon and perhaps Shirley and to cease alleged crimes taking place real time and
    have this Court take instant actions to cease the alleged unlawful activities ongoing and
    notify all proper criminal authorities of the Fraud on this Court, Forgery, Fraud, Theft,
    Alleged Murder and more.
22. This Court rule to reimburse ALL costs incurred by any Interested Party or Beneficiary or
    Trustee, etc., after the Court rules on just who the exact beneficiaries are to be. As
    resolving these legal problems that are due to violations of fiduciary duties in handling the
    Estates and alleged Fraud and Forgery and more should neither be burdened to the
    Estates, the Beneficiaries, Interested Parties or Trustees and instead should be
    demanded by this Court to be paid entirely by TS, Tescher, Spallina and Theodore and
    any others this Court deems culpable.
23. That this Court should have those responsible for these document defects and crimes put
    up bonds or any other relief this Court may find applicable to cover these resulting costs
    in advance and to secure that these monies are covered for future anticipated costs of
    correcting all deficiencies and losses of any sort caused by their unlawful actions by all
    responsible parties.
24. Under RULE 5.160. PRODUCTION OF ASSETS due to the alleged unlawful activity
    alleged and evidenced herein, the Court should require all Personal Representative,
    including Theodore Bernstein who is acting as a Personal Representative and Successor
    Trustee without Court approval, produce satisfactory evidence that the assets of the
    Estates are in the possession or under the control of the Personal Representatives and
    Successor Trustee and order production of the assets in the manner and for the purposes
    directed by the Court.
25. Under RULE 5.230. COMMISSION TO PROVE WILL, due to the problems with the Will of
    Simon Bernstein evidenced herein and the inclusion of the Will Exhibit with no reference
    thereunder, Petitioner petitions the Court to appoint a commissioner to take the oath of
    any person qualified to prove the wills of Simon and Shirley under Florida law.
26. Under RULE 5.235. ISSUANCE OF LETTERS, BOND, due to the problems with the
    documentation in the Estates and unlawful activities alleged and evidenced herein,
    Petitioner requests the Court consider requiring the Personal Representatives to give
    bond to require additional surety great enou h to cover all potential losses to the
    Beneficiaries. Losses could be claimed to be approximately $20,000,000.00 or more by
    each beneficiary.
27.Under RULE 5.310. DISQUALIFICATION OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE;
    NOTIFICATION, since Theodore Bernstein, TS, Donald Tescher and Robert Spallina all
    appear to be acting Personal Representatives who were not qualified to act at the time of
    appointment and whose appointments were made through Fraudulent and Forged and
    incomplete documentation submitted to this Court and Petitioner and other, as described
    herein, Petitioner believes none of them would be qualified for appointment at that time,
    this time or any time.
28. That Petitioner files and serves herein on all parties this notice describing why these
    Personal Representatives should be removed due to the alleged unlawful acts and
    violations of fiduciary responsibilities evidenced herein, which show that Theodore
    Bernstein, Robert Spallina, Donald Tescher and TS were not qualified at the time of
    appointment to be Personal Representatives for the Estates. For the reasons already
    stated herein these Personal Representatives would not be qualified for appointment if
    application for appointment were again made based on the facts contained herein. That
    the Court should instantly remove and replace these Personal Representations and grant
    Petitioner any monetary and injunctive relief this Court deems just.
29. This Court should sanction and report to the appropriate Federal and State Criminal
    authorities and attorney regulatory agencies all those this Court finds to have acted in
    concert unlawfully and in violation of, fiduciary responsibilities, attorney conduct codes,
    public office rules and regulations (TS, Spallina and Tescher as Officers of this Court) and
    State and Federal law.
30. Under RULE 5.320. OATH OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, the Court should note
    that at no time before the granting of letters of administration, did Theodore, one of the
    "acting" Personal Representatives/Successor Trustee in the Estates, file an oath to
    faithfully administer the estate of the decedents with this Court or to the Beneficiaries or
    their Trustees and this Court should take all steps necessary to remedy this failure,
    including but not limited to making null and void any actions of Theodore as Successor
    Trustee in Shirley's closed estate, or Personal Representative/Successor Trustee in
    Simon's estate and any other relief this Court sees fit.
31. Under RULE 5.340. INVENTORY, the Personal Representatives Tescher and Spallina
    have failed to serve a copy of the inventory and all supplemental and amended
    inventories to each heir at law, each residuary beneficiary and did not serve a copy to
    Petitioner who requested it both orally and in writing for the Estates and as Guardian and
    Trustee for his children and therefore this Court should take appropriate actions for this
    violation and demand all inventories prepared by TS, Goldstein Lewin/CBIZ MHM, LLC,
    Theodore or any other party that has made or maintains an inventory of any assets of the
    Estates, be instantly turned over to this Cou      That all inventories submitted to this Court
                                                    . -,..:..
                                                                '';''.\


                                                                      .,
    or any party that may be sealed or marked confidential in any way in the Estates be
    turned over to Petitioner and Petitioner's children's counsel Tripp Scott.
32. There is an inventory for the personal property of Simon and Shirley that was submitted
    by Theodore to Pamela, Jill, Lisa and Petitioner, whereby Theodore was acting in an
    unauthorized capacity as a Personal Representative to be handling the inventory. That
    this inventory was not verified by the Personal Representatives, Tescher and Spallina that
    were supposedly designated by Simon in the alleged 2012 Amended Trust and therefore
    this Court should take appropriate actions for this failure of the Personal Representatives
    to verify this inventory and discard the inventory by Theodore and have these items re-
    evaluated by a new firm and new Personal Representative(s).
33. That there is an inventory list and insurance policies for Jewelry and Jewelry that was
    removed from the Estates by Pamela, Jill and Lisa and these properties and inventories
    should be immediately secured by this Court from any parties in possession of them and
    all assets returned to the Court for proper distribution to the proper Beneficiaries.
34. That this Court should consider disregarding all estate planning instruments, trusts, wills,
    etc. that were prepared after the 2008 Wills and Trusts that Simon and Shirley did
    together that were long standing estate plans and the Beneficiaries and other Interested
    Parties of that 2008 plan should remain in force, unless other evidence of Fraud or
    Forgery or more is found in those documents that necessitate changes.

      9. FLORIDA ESTATE RULES RELIEFS

35. Under RULE 5.341. ESTATE INFORMATION, the Personal Representatives Tescher,
    Spallina and Theodore have failed on reasonable and numerous requests in writing, to
    provide interested persons, including but not limited to, Petitioner and Petitioner's
    children's counsel information about the Estates and its administration and therefore this
    Court should take all actions necessary to rectify this violation and force them to
    immediately turn over all records in the Estates of Simon and Shirley and all of their
    records regarding any party named herein, in entirety, to review by this Court and
    Petitioner for further evidence of fraud, theft and forgery and more.
36. Under RULE 5.341. ESTATE INFORMATION, records this Court should demand and
    tender to Petitioner and Petitioner's children's counsel, include but are not limited to,

    1. 1995 Simon Bernstein Irrevocable Insurance Trust
    2. 2008 Trust of Simon
    3. Full documentation for Proskauer Rose's Will Exhibit in the Will of Simon and all
       estate work Proskauer has for Simon and Shirley their children and grandchildren
       and Petitioner and Candice and their children and grandchildren
    4. All trusts created by any party named herein for the Beneficiaries, children or
       grandchildren of the decedents Simon nd Shirley.
5. All records for both Estates, including but not limited to, banking, investment,
    business, accounting, real estate, transfers, titles, deeds, insurance, IRA's, pensions,
    retirement plans and any other records necessary to ascertain the assets in the
    Estates.
6. All investment account records from Stanford, JP Morgan and Oppenheimer and any
    banking accounts or other asset accounts.
7. All medical records of Simon and Shirley from all doctors involved in their care for the
    years 2007-2012.
8. All post mortem medical records, coroner records and hospital records.
9. SIMON BERNSTEIN IRREVOCABLE TRUST U/A 9n/06
10. SIMON L BERNSTEIN, Trustee of the SIMON L. BERNSTEIN TRUST AGREEMENT
    dated May 20, 2008
11. MARITAL TRUST and FAMILY TRUST created by SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, Trustee
    of the SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN TRUST AGREEMENT dated May 20, 2008,
12.SIMON L. BERNSTEIN and SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, Co-Trustees and ROBERT L.
    SPALLINA, Independent Trustee of the ELIOT BERNSTEIN FAMILY TRUST dated
    May 20, 2008,
13.SIMON L. BERNSTEIN and SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, Co-Trustees, and ROBERT L.
    SPALLINA, Independent Trustee of the JILL IANTONI FAMILY TRUST dated May
    20, 2008,
14. SIMON L.BERNSTEIN and SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, Co-Trustees, and ROBERT L.
    SPALLINA, Independent Trustee of the LISA S. FRIEDSTEIN FAMILY TRUST dated
    May 20, 2008,
15.DANIEL BERNSTEIN IRREVOCABLE TRUST dated September 7, 2006
16.JAKE BERNSTEIN IRREVOCABLE TRUST dated September 7, 2006
17.JOSHUA Z. BERNSTEIN IRREVOCABLE TRUST dated September 7, 2006
18.Case: 502010CP003127XXXXSB IN RE JULIA IANTONI IRREVOCABLE TRUST
    DTD 09/07/06 07-JUL-10 0497381 ATTORNEY SPALLINA, ROBERT L
19.Case: 502010CP003123XXXXSB INRE DANIEL BERNSTEIN IRREVOCABLE
    TRUST 07-JUL-10 0497381 ATTORNEY SPALLINA, ROBERT L
20.Case: 502010CP003124XXXXSB INRE CARLY ESTHER FRIEDSTEIN
    IRREVOCABLE TRUST 07-JUL-10 0497381 ATTORNEY SPALLINA, ROBERT L
21. Case: 502010CP003125XXXXSB INRE JAKE BERNSTEIN IRREVOCABLE TRUST
    07-JUL-10 0497381 ATTORNEY SPALLINA, ROBERT L
22.Case: 502010CP003126XXXXSB INRE MAX FRIEDSTEIN IRREVOCABLE TRUST
    07-JUL-10 0497381 ATTORNEY SPALLINA, ROBERT L
23.Case:     502010CP003128XXXXSB            INRE JOSHUA Z BERNSTEIN
    IRREVOCABLE TRUST 07-JUL-10 049 381 ATTORNEY SPALLINA, ROBERT L




                                        .,, . ·,   .. ··· ..:._
   DOCUMENTS ALREADY REQUESTED BY TRIPP SCOTT IN THREE LETTERS
   ATTACHED ALREADY HEREIN AS EXHIBIT

24. Copies of all estate planning documents including all Wills and Trusts for Shirley
    Bernstein and Simon Leon Bernstein, whether qualified or contingent.
25. Copies of all estate planning documents including all Wills and Trusts that the
    children, Joshua, Jacob and/or Daniel, are named as beneficiary, whether qualified or
    contingent.
26. Copies of all documents executed in May and June 2012 regarding the Last Will and
    Testament of Shirley Bernstein.
27. Estate Accounting for Shirley Bernstein.
28. Estate Accounting for Simon Bernstein.
29. Trust Accountings for any Trusts that Petitioner, his spouse, or his children are a
    beneficiary, whether qualified or contingent.
30. Copies of any claims filed in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein and Simon Bernstein.
31. Copy of the Inventory filed in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein.
32. Copy of the Inventory filed in the Estate of Simon Bernstein, or if none, please
    provide the approximate date you expect the Inventory will be prepared and filed with
    the Probate Court.
33. Allocation of the tangible personal property of Shirley and Simon Bernstein.
    Specifically, is the jewelry being divided among the ten grandchildren?
34.Appraisals of tangible personal property, specifically the jewelry, artwork and
    collectibles.
35.All documents relating to the life insurance policies owned by Shirley and/or Simon,
    insuring Shirley and/or Simon's life, or for the benefit of Shirley and/or Simon
    Bernstein.
36. Documentation concerning the allocation and division of all companies owned by
    Simon and/or Shirley at the time of their deaths and copies of any partnership,
    operating, or stockholders agreements.
37. Status of the ongoing litigation involving Stanford.
38. Status of the lliewit [lviewit] company stock. Were the issues with Gerald Lewin
    resolved?
39. Status of the funding of Telenet Company and Candice's employment with Telenet
    and monies owed to Eliot Bernstein.
40.Any information you have with regards to the, grade school, middle school, high
    school and college funds created by Simon or Shirley Bernstein for the benefit of
    Joshua, Jacob and/or Daniel.
41.A copy of Simon Bernstein's Trust and accounting.
42.A copy of Shirley Bernstein's Trust and ace unting.
43.A copy of Bernstein Family LLC's Trust.
    44.A copy of Bernstein Holdings and Family Corporation.
    45. Objections to claims filed in Estate of Simon Bernstein.
    46. Exempt Property Petition filed .
    47. Personal Property Inventory for Estate of Simon and Shirley Bernstein,
    48. Status of the ongoing litigation involving the Estate Substitution in Stanford - Case
        status and attorney handling.
    49. Limited Power of Appointment executed by Simon.
    50. Inventory for Shirley Bernstein.
    51. Inventory for Simon Bernstein.
    52. UC Holdings corporate Documents.
    53. Mortgage documents relating to Eliot's children's home and documents pertaining to
        first mortgage.
    54. Accounting of each child's Trust.

37. Under RULE 5.350. CONTINUANCE OF UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS OR
    VENTURE, Petitioner requests this Court for an order regarding the operation of,
    accounting for, and termination of any and all unincorporated businesses and ventures in
    regards to Simon and Shirley's interests in business ventures, including but not limited to,

    1. Bernstein Simon and Shirley-A company in Boca Raton, FL.
    2. LIC Holdings, Inc.
    3. Life Insurance Concepts Inc.
    4. Life Insurance Connection Inc.
    5. Life Insurance Innovations, Inc.
    6. Arbitrage International Management LLC
    7. Arbitrage International Marketing, Inc.
    8. Arbitrage International Holdings, LLC
    9. Bernstein Holdings, LLC
    10. Bernstein Family Investments, Lllp
    11. Bernstein Family Realty LLC
    12.Shirley Bernstein Family Foundation Inc.
    13. Cambridge Financing Company
    14. Cambridge Companies
    15. TSB Holdings, LLC
    16. Total Brokerage Solutions LLC
    17. National Service Corporation
    18. National Service Association, In
    19. S.T.P. Enterprises
    20.ALPS
    21. SB Lexington                            ',~.:'I
                                                    r


                                                        ~-;~)
                                                        ,;
    22. NSA, Inc.
    23. National Service Association, Inc.
    24.Arbitrage International Management LLC
    25.Arbitrage International Marketing, Inc.
    26. Syracuse Partners Incorporated
    27. Bernstein & Associates, Inc.
    28. Cambridge Associates Of Indiana, Inc.
    29. Telenet Systems, LLC
    30. Telenet Systems, Inc.
    31.1.C., Inc.
    32. lviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
    33. lviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL (yes, two identically named)
    34. lviewit Holdings, Inc. - FL (yes, three identically named)
    35. lviewit Technologies, Inc. - DL
    36. Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
    37. Uview.com, Inc. - DL
    38. lviewit.com, Inc. - FL
    39. lviewit.com, Inc. - DL
    40.1.C., Inc. - FL
    41. lviewit.com LLC - DL
    42. lviewit LLC - DL
    43. lviewit Corporation - FL
    44. lviewit, Inc. - FL
    45. lviewit, Inc. - DL
    46. lviewit Corporation
    47.and all other businesses that Simon and Shirley have or had any interest in or that
        are part of any Estates assets or records.

38. Under RULE 5.370. SALES OF REAL PROPERTY WHERE NO POWER CONFERRED,
    the Personal Representatives Tescher and Spallina and the unauthorized Personal
    Representative Theodore have not followed this rule in listing and attempting to sell real
    property proposed to be sold and where authorization and confirmation of the sale of real
    or any property is now required as it is unknown if any Trust provisions negating such
    notice are valid until further review by this Court, as the Personal Representatives have
    failed to file a verified petition setting forth the reasons for the sales, a description of the
    real property sold or proposed to be sold, and the price and terms of the sale and may be
    acting in unauthorized capacities gained throug forged and fraudulent documents and
    self-dealings may be taking place with adverse effect to the Beneficiaries and Interested
    Parties.
39. Under RULE 5.385. DETERMINATION OF BENEFICIARIES AND SHARES, Petitioner
    being an interested person remains in doubt and further is unable to determine with
    certainty the true and proper Beneficiaries entitled to the Estates for the reasons set forth
    already herein and the shares due any Beneficiaries of the Estates and the Beneficiaries
    entitled to all assets and interests in the Estates. Therefore, Petitioner petitions this court
    to determine the true and proper Beneficiaries in the Estates and what documents govern
    the administration , as it is wholly unclear who the Beneficiaries are to Petitioner and
    Petitioner's children's counsel until this Court makes determination as to what documents
    are valid in the Estates and determines who the Beneficiaries are and should be based on
    the information herein.
40. Under RULE 5.401 OBJECTIONS TO PETITION FOR DISCHARGE OR FINAL
    ACCOUNTING and based on the new evidence of alleged Forged and Fraudulent
    documents and violations of Fiduciary Duties by the Personal Representatives of the
    Estates, Petitioner objects to discharge and final accounting of either Simon or Shirley's
    estate, without the Court first ruling on this Petition and the effect these allegations and
    evidence will have on the outcome of the Estates .
41. Under RULE 5.404 NOTICE OF TAKING POSSESSION OF PROTECTED
    HOMESTEAD, the Personal Representatives failed to File Notice with the Beneficiaries
    that they were taking possession of what appears reasonably to be protected homesteads
    that were pending a determination of their homestead status. No notice of this act was
    given for the properties at 7020 Lions Head Lane, Boca Raton , FL 33496-5931 and 2494
    S. Ocean Boulevard, Unit C5, Boca Raton, FL, 33432 and therefore there was no notice
    of the,

      1.   legal description of the property;
     ii.   statement of the limited purpose for preserving, insuring, and protecting it for the
           heirs or devisees pending a determination of the homestead status;
    iii.   the name and address of the personal representative and the personal
           representative's attorney;
   iv.     if known, the location, date, and time the petition to determine homestead status will
           be heard, and
    v.     if the personal representative is in possession when the notice is filed, the date the
           personal representative took possession.

   Therefore there was no Service of Notice that as served in the manner provided for
   service of formal notice on interested persons nd on any person in actual possession of
   the properties.




                                                          .   .
                                                          .
                                                          ::./
                                                ·10 ..
42 . Under RULE 5.405. PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE PROTECTED HOMESTEAD
     REAL PROPERTY, Petitioner petitions this Court as an interested person to determine
     protected homestead real property owned by the decedents.
43. Under RULE 5.406. PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE EXEMPT PROPERTY, Petitioner
     petitions this Court to determine exempt property within the time allowed by law.
44. Under RULE 5.407. PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE FAMILY ALLOWANCE, Petitioner
     petitions this Court as an interested person to determine family allowance.
       1. That support was being rendered by Simon Bernstein to pay for Petitioner and his
          wife and children's ongoing education and living expenses, while they are in a unique
          position involving an ongoing RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit with many Defendants
          in those desiring to cause physical, emotional and financial harm to Petitioner's
          family, including a Bomb that exploded in their family Minivan in Del Ray Beach, FL.
      ii. That in order to protect Petitioner and his family, Simon and Shirley took elaborate
          legal steps to protect the assets in the Estates that were going to fund Petitioner and
          his children and where TS, Spallina, Tescher and Theodore through their unlawful
          actions alleged herein , attempt to defile the intricate planning steps Simon and
          Shirley took with Spallina to protect Petitioner and his family.
     iii. That some of this support by Simon and Shirley of Petitioner and his immediate
          family was contracted into in an August 15, 2007, Advancement of Inheritance
          Agreement ("AIA") between Petitioner and Candice and Simon and Shirley, executed
          by John A. Herrera, M.Acc., J.D.,LL.M., CPA of Boca Raton, FL., which provided for
          $100,000 year advancement of inheritance. That Spallina connived Petitioner that
          the monies for the AIA were coming as usual through the Legacy Bank accounts and
          did not notify Petitioner that he switched the payments to his children's school trust
          funds.
     1v. That Simon and Shirley also funded the children's school directly through other
          established trusts for Petitioner and his children.
      v. That Simon and Shirley paid for and renovated entirely the home that Petitioner and
          his family reside in, using funds from Petitioner's children's trust as evidenced already
          herein and additionally other monies set aside for Petitioner from the sale of a
          condominium at Townsend Place in Boca Raton several years earlier, whereby
          Simon and Shirley retained the monies from the sale of Petitioner's condominium
          when it sold, as Petitioner and his family were forced to flee from the property they
          owned and abandon it overnight to go into hiding in California and Nevada, as death
          threats were made upon Petitioner by a one, Brian G. Utley ("Utley"), acting on behalf
          of Proskauer Rose, Foley and Lardner and others, to force Petitioner not to notify
          authorities of the crimes discovered that are all defined in Petitioner's RICO and
          Antitrust action, State, Federal and Intern tional Ongoing Criminal Complaints and
          investigations.
45. That RICO and Antitrust lawsuit case# 1:07-cv-11196-SAS, Bernstein, et al. v Appellate
    Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al., the related Anderson case and
    the other cases related to Anderson all hereby be incorporated by reference in entirety
    herein, all pleadings, orders, etc.
46. That Petitioner and Candice and their children are interested persons in the Estates and
    file petition to have this Court determine family allowance so as to not force hardships,
    resulting from the misdeeds already described herein and other misdeeds, upon
    Petitioner and his family.

      i. Decedent has no surviving spouse and the decedent's lineal heirs who were being
         supported by the decedent and are therefore entitled to be supported by the
         decedent at the time of his death are,
     11. Eliot Bernstein, son
    iii. Candice Bernstein, daughter in law
    1v. Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein, grandson DOB 08/27/1997
     v. Jacob Noah Archie Bernstein, grandson DOB 01/01/1999
   vi. Daniel Elijsha Abe Ottomo Bernstein, grandson DOB 11/26/2002
   vii. The allowance is claimed based on the AIA and other allowances paid for by Simon
         and Shirley for Petitioner and his family for almost a decade prior to their deaths and
         set up for immediately after their deaths and the amount is to be split equally among
         Candice and Petitioner and/or their children.

47. Under RULE 5.440. PROCEEDINGS FOR REMOVAL OF PERSONAL
    REPRESENTATIVE, this Court on its own motion may instantly commence a proceeding
    to remove the personal representatives. The herein stated claims constitute the facts
    constituting the grounds upon which removal is sought.
48. This Court should demand the removed personal representatives to file an accounting
    within 10 days after removal.
49. Under the March 6, 2013 Florida Probate Rules 120, this Court should mandate Delivery
    of Records and Property by the removed personal representatives, immediately after
    removal or within such time prescribed by Court order, delivering to the to the successor
    fiduciary or this Court all of the records of the Estates and all of the properties of the
    Estates.
50. Under RULE 5.460. SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATION is sought in the Estates. The
    estate of Shirley appears in the Court record to be recently closed but as further
    administration of the estate of Shirley is now required for the reasons stated herein,
    including Fraud, Forgery and Revocation of Petitioner's Waiver in Shirley's estate
    attached herein, Petitioner petitions this Court for further administration of the estate of
    Shirley based on its findings in these matters nd other relief this Court may deem
    appropriate.
                                          'i' ·
51. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 732 PROBATE CODE: INTESTATE
    SUCCESSION AND WILLS, 732.5165 that the effect of fraud, duress, mistake, and
    undue influence may invalidate the Will of Simon, as a will is void if the execution is
    procured by fraud, duress, mistake, or undue influence. That this Court now determine if
    any part of the will is void as so procured and if the remainder of the will not so procured
    shall be valid if it is not invalid for other reasons. The court must also determine if the
    revocation of a will, or any part thereof, is procured by fraud, duress, mistake, or undue
    influence, such revocation is void.
52. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 733 PROBATE CODE:
    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES 733.504 regarding removal of personal representative
    for cause and where the Court must determine if the Personal Representatives should be
    removed and the letters revoked for any of the following causes and those already
    evidenced and alleged herein, and the removal shall be in addition to any penalties
    prescribed by law:

     i. Failure to comply with any order of the court, unless the order has been superseded
        on appeal. Where the Court ordered that certain documents be returned to the Court
        by the Personal Representatives notarized and wherefore by submitting Fraudulent
        and Forged documents to this Court would be a failure to comply, a fraud on the
        Court and more.
    ii. Failure to account for the sale of property or to produce and exhibit the assets of the
        Estates when so required, as evidenced already herein, and whereby failing to file
        inventory for Simon's estate as ordered by this Court due "60 days after January 14,
        2013 and where it has not been filed with the court as of May 02, 2013.
   111. Wasting and maladministration of the Estates as evidenced already herein.
   1v. Holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the Estates that interfere
        with the administration of the Estates as a whole.
    v. Revocation of the probate of the decedent's will that authorized or designated the
        appointment of the personal representatives.
   vi. The personal representatives would not now or have ever been entitled to
        appointment.

53. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 733 PROBATE CODE:
    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES that this Court under 733.508 demand an accounting
    and discharge of removed personal representatives whereupon removal,

     i. a removed personal representative shall file and serve a final accounting of that
        personal representative's administration,
    ii. after determination and satisfaction of the liability, if any, of the removed personal
        representative and upon receipt of evi? : .JJ.,9~~~ at the Estates assets have been
                                                 1

                                           !~;:~f~;t
       delivered to the successor fiduciary, the removed personal representative shall be
       discharged.

54. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 733 PROBATE CODE:
    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES 733.509 this Court enter an order removing the
    personal representatives and have them immediately deliver all Estates assets, records,
    documents, papers, and other property of or concerning the Estates in the removed
    personal representative's possession or control to the remaining personal representative
    or successor fiduciary or this Court and this Court turn relevant documents over to the
    appropriate state and federal authorities for further investigation of alleged forgery and
    fraud.
55. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 733 PROBATE CODE:
    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES 733.609 Improper exercise of power; breach of
    fiduciary duty, the Court will note that,

     i. a personal representative's fiduciary duty is the same as the fiduciary duty of a
        trustee of an express trust, and a personal representative is liable to interested
        persons for damage or loss resulting from the breach of this duty. In all actions for
        breach of fiduciary duty or challenging the exercise of or failure to exercise a personal
        representative's powers, the court shall award taxable costs as in chancery actions,
        including attorney's fees.
    ii. When awarding taxable costs, including attorney's fees, under this section, the court
        in its discretion may direct payment from a party's interest, if any, in the Estates or
        enter a judgment which may be satisfied from other property of the party, or both .

56. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 733 PROBATE CODE:
    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES 733.619 Individual liability of personal representative
    should be considered by the Court where,

     i. a personal representative is individually liable for obligations arising from ownership
        or control of the Estates or for torts committed in the course of administration of the
        Estates if personally at fault.
    ii. claims based on contracts, except a contract for attorney's fee, entered into by a
        personal representative as a fiduciary, on obligations arising from ownership or
        control of the Estates, or on torts committed in the course of Estates administration,
        may be asserted against the Estates by proceeding against the personal
        representative in that capacity, whether or not the personal representative is
        individually liable.
    iii. issues of liability as between the Estates and the personal representative individually
         may be determined in a proceeding for accounting, surcharge, or indemnification, or
         other appropriate proceeding.

57. Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 733 PROBATE CODE: ADMINISTRATION
    OF ESTATES 733.620 Exculpation of personal representative where

   (1) A term of a will relieving a personal representative of liability to a beneficiary for
   breach of fiduciary duty is unenforceable to the extent that the term:

          (a) Relieves the personal representative of liability for breach of fiduciary duty
          committed in bad faith or with reckless indifference to the purposes of the will or the
          interests of interested persons; or

          (b) Was inserted into the will as the result of an abuse by the personal representative
          of a fiduciary or confidential relationship with the testator.

   (2) An exculpatory term drafted or caused to be drafted by the personal representative
   is invalid as an abuse of a fiduciary or confidential relationship unless:

          (a) The personal representative proves that the exculpatory term is fair under the
          circumstances.

          (b) The term's existence and contents were adequately communicated directly to the
          testator or to the independent attorney of the testator. This paragraph applies only to
          wills created on or after July 1, 2007.

58. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 736 FLORIDA TRUST CODE
    736.0406 this Court must determine the effect of fraud, duress, mistake, or undue
    influence. If the creation, amendment, or restatement of a trust is procured by fraud,
    duress, mistake, or undue influence, the trust or any part so procured is void. The
    remainder of the trust not procured by such means is valid if the remainder is not invalid
    for other reasons. If the revocation of a trust, or any part thereof, is procured by fraud,
    duress, mistake, or undue influence, such revocation is void.
59. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 736 FLORIDA TRUST CODE
    736.1001 Remedies for breach of trust.- This Court should provide remedies for
    breaches of trust, including but not limited to,

     1. violations by the trustee of a duty the trustees owe to beneficiaries
    ii. to remedy a breach of trust that has occurred or may occur, the court may:
         a. Compel the trustee to perform the trustee's duties;
         b. Enjoin the trustee from committing breach of trust;
        c. Compel the trustee to red ress a breach of trust by paying money or restoring
           property or by other means;
        d. Order a trustee to account;
        e. Appoint a special fiduciary to take possession of the trust property and administer
           the trust;
        f. Suspend the trustee;
        g. Remove the trustee as provided ins. 736.0706;
        h. Reduce or deny compensation to the trustee and recover all compensation
           determined to have been fraudulently gained;
        i. Subject to s. 736.1016, void an act of the trustee, impose a lien or a constructive
           trust on trust property, or trace trust property wrongfully disposed of and recover
           the property or its proceeds; or
        j. Order any other appropriate relief.

     As an illustration of the remedies available to the court and without limiting the court's
     discretion as provided in subsection (2), if a breach of trust results in the favoring of
     any beneficiary to the detriment of any other beneficiary or consists of an abuse of the
     trustee's discretion:

     i. To the extent the breach of trust has resulted in no distribution to a beneficiary or a
        distribution that is too small, the court may require the trustee to pay from the trust to
        the beneficiary an amount the court determines will restore the beneficiary, in whole
        or in part, to his or her appropriate position.
    ii. To the extent the breach of trust has resulted in a distribution to a beneficiary that is
        too large, the court may restore the beneficiaries, the trust, or both, in whole or in
        part, to their appropriate positions by requiring the trustee to withhold an amount from
        one or more future distributions to the beneficiary who received the distribution that
        was too large or by requiring that beneficiary to return some or all of the distribution to
        the trust.

60. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 736 FLORIDA TRUST CODE
    736.1002 Damages for breach of trust.- This Court must determine damages for
    breaches of trust where,

    i. A trustee who commits a breach of trust is liable for the greater of:
       a. The amount required to restore the value of the trust property and trust
           distributions to what they would have been if the breach had not occurred,
           including lost income, capital gain, or appreciation that would have resulted from
           proper administration; or
       b. The profit the trustee made by reason
 ii. if more than one person, including a trustee or trustees, is liable to the beneficiaries
     for a breach of trust, each liable person is entitled to pro rata contribution from the
     other person or persons. A person is not entitled to contribution if the person
     committed the breach of trust in bad faith. A person who received a benefit from the
     breach of trust is not entitled to contribution from another person to the extent of the
     benefit received.
iii. in determining the pro rata shares of liable persons in the entire liability for a breach
     of trust:

   c. Their relative degrees of fault shall be the basis for allocation of liability.
   d. If equity requires, the collective liability of some as a group shall constitute a
      single share.
   e. Principles of equity applicable to contribution generally shall apply.
   f. The right of contribution shall be enforced as follows:
      1. Contribution may be enforced by separate action, whether or not judgment has
          been entered in an action against two or more liable persons for the same
          breach of trust.
      2. When a judgment has been entered in an action against two or more liable
          persons for the same breach of trust, contribution may be enforced in that
          action by judgment in favor of one judgment defendant against any other
          judgment defendants by motion upon notice to all parties to the action.
      3. If there is a judgment for breach of trust against the liable person seeking
          contribution, any separate action by that person to enforce contribution must
          be commenced within 1 year after the judgment has become final by lapse of
          time for appeal or after appellate review.

1v. If there is no judgment for the breach of trust against the liable person seeking
    contribution, the person's right of contribution is barred unless the person has:

    a. Discharged by payment the common liability within the period of the statute of
       limitations applicable to the beneficiary's right of action against the liable person
       and the person has commenced an action for contribution within 1 year after
       payment, or
    b. Agreed, while action is pending against the liable person, to discharge the
       common liability and has within 1 year after the agreement paid the liability and
       commenced the person's action for contribution.

v. The beneficiary's recovery of a judgment for breach of trust against one liable person
   does not of itself discharge other liable ersons from liability for the breach of trust
        unless the judgment is satisfied. The satisfaction of the judgment does not impair any
        right of contribution.
    vi. The judgment of the court in determining the liability of several defendants to the
        beneficiary for breach of trust is binding upon such defendants in determining the
        right of such defendants to contribution.
   vii. Subsection (2) applies to all causes of action for breach of trust pending on July 1,
        2007, under which causes of action the right of contribution among persons jointly
        and severally liable is involved and to all causes of action filed after July 1, 2007.

61. Under Title XLll ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 736 736.1004 Attorney's fees and
    costs.- That the Court,

      1.   In all actions for breach of fiduciary duty or challenging the exercise of, or failure to
           exercise, a trustee's powers; and
     11.   In proceedings arising under ss. 736.0410-736.0417, the court shall award taxable
           costs as in chancery actions, including attorney fees and guardian ad litem fees.
    111.   When awarding taxable costs under this section, including attorney fees and guardian
           ad litem fees, the court, in its discretion, may direct payment from a party's interest, if
           any, in the trust or enter a judgment that may be satisfied from other property of the
           party, or both.

62. Under Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 831 FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING
    831.01 Forgery.-That the Court should take appropriate actions and notify appropriate
    criminal authorities to take immediate actions regarding persons who falsely made,
    altered, forged and counterfeited a public record, notary publics in relation to a matter
    wherein such documents were received as a legal proof; will, testament, created with
    intent to injure or defraud other persons and if convicted they shall be guilty of a felony of
    the third degree, punishable as provided ins. 775.082, s. 775.083, ors. 775.084.
63. Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 831 FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING 831.02 Uttering
    forged instruments.-That the Court should take appropriate actions and notify
    appropriate authorities that whoever uttered and published as true these false, forged and
    altered records to this Court and others mentioned ins. 831.01 knowing the same to be
    false, altered, forged or counterfeited, with intent to injure or defraud any person, shall be
    guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided ins. 775.082, s. 775.083, or
    s. 775.084.

      i. That the Court should take appropriate actions and notify appropriate authorities that
         under 839.13 as Falsifying records may have occurred in the Estates and whereby if
         any public officer (Attorneys at Law before this Court are presumably public officers),
         or employee or agent of or contractor wi h a public agency, or any person
       whatsoever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any
       record, process, charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or contract, or any paper filed in any
       judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and willfully take off,
       discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other forfeiture, or other
       paper above mentioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any document or instrument
       recorded, or filed in any court, or any registry, acknowledgment, or certificate, or shall
       fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes, documents, books, or any
       proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if any
       person shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in
       anywise concerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
       of the first degree, punishable as provided ins. 775.082 ors. 775.083.

64. Rule 5.065 Notice of Civil Action Filed - Failure of Personal Representatives to notify
    interested parties of Civil Action proceedings.
65. 5.346 Fiduciary Accounting Terms - Failure of Personal Representatives to properly
    furnish accounting of all Personal Representatives fees, attorney fees, accountants and
    fiduciary accounting terms including growth of stocks and income received.
66. 5.160 Personal Representatives must prove possession of assets and failed to submit
    what assets the Personal Representatives are currently in possession of.
67. 5.400 Distribution of Estate - Failure to timely distribute assets of Shirley and Simon
    including any property or funds remaining or retained.
68. 5.403 Homestead Lien Notification - Failure to notify interested parties of liens on
    Homesteads.
69. 5.498 Proof of Claim Notification - Failure to notify all interested parties of claims against
    the Estates, for example, the Puccio documents.
70. 5.406 Exempt Property and 5.340 Failure to Provide - Failure to furnish timely inventory of
    assets including assets that have been taken and not returned ie jewelry.
71. 5.160 Personal Representatives Must Prove Possession of Assets - Failing to protect the
    Estates by not taking direct possession of assets and letting Theodore recover and
    remove assets from the Homestead
72. 5.404 Notice of Taking Possession of Homestead - Failure to notify interested parties that
    the Personal Representatives were giving possession of Homesteads to Theodore only
    and locking out the direct Beneficiaries and Interested Parties.
73. That this Court hereby incorporates by reference and printing each, in entirety, all URL's
    cited as exhibits in this Petition and print them accordingly for the record and record them
    in the docket as exhibits to this Petition. Where evidence tampering in Federal cases has
    already been evidenced herein through the legally related Anderson case and Petitioner's
    RICO, please note for the record the time and he date the URL record/exhibit is printed
    and docketed into the court record.
          XXIII. EXHIBITS


          EXHIBIT 1 - CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN THEODORE, ELIOT AND SIMON
          BERNSTEIN

          EXHIBIT 2 - EMAIL TO SPALLINA WITH UNNOTARIZED WAIVER

          EXHIBIT 3 - JILL UNNOTARIZED WAIVER

          EXHIBIT 4 - SHERIFF DEPARTMENT INTAKE FORM

          EXHIBIT 5 - EMAILS REGARDING LOST IIT

          EXHIBIT 6 - EMAILS REGARDING LOST HERITAGE POLICY

          EXHIBIT 7 - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE (SAMR")

          EXHIBIT 8 - ELIOT LETTERS REGARDING COUNSEL FOR SAMR

          EXHIBIT 9 - SPALLINA LETTERS REGARDING HERITAGE POLICY BENEFICIARIES

          EXHIBIT 10 - TRIPP SCOTT LETTERS TO SPALLINA FOR DOCUMENTS, ETC.

          EXHIBIT 11-TRIPP SCOTT CONFLICT LETTER

          EXHIBIT 12 - WAIVERS NOT NOTARIZED

          EXHIBIT 13 - THIS COURT'S MEMO TO TS

          EXHIBIT 14 - WAIVERS NOTARIZED IN PAST

          EXHIBIT 15 - SIMON'S WAIVER SIGNED POST MORTEM

          EXHIBIT 16 - PETITIONER REVOCATION OF WAIVER

          EXHIBIT 17 - SIGNATURE PAGES OF ALLEGE   2012 AMENDED TRUST




                                                   .~·           J '
                                                         1•• :




--   -   --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -
EXHIBIT 18 - SIGNATURE PAGES OF 2012 WILL OF SIMON

EXHIBIT 19 - RELEVANT PAGES OF WILL EXHIBIT

SEE EXHIBIT 20 - STANFORD TRANSFER OF FUNDS RELEASE LETTER

EXHIBIT 21 - BALLOON MORTGAGE

EXHIBIT 22 -PROMISSORY NOTE

EXHIBIT 23 -ADVANCEMENT OF INHERITANCE AGREEMENT ("AIA")

EXHIBIT 24 - WALT SAHM CARRY OVER LOAN

EXHIBIT 25 - PAMELA EMAIL'S REGARDING LOST HERITAGE POLICY

EXHIBIT 26 - PETITIONER LETTER EXCHANGE WITH TS REGARDING IVIEWIT

EXHIBIT 27 - LETTER FROM ELIOT TO SPALLINA RE IVIEWIT'S RELATION TO
PROSKAUER AND LEWIN

EXHIBIT 28 - EXPOSE CORRUPT COURT ARTICLES

EXHIBIT 29 - MOTION FOR REHEARING BASED ON FRAUD ON THE COURT AND
OBSTRUCTION

EXHIBIT 30 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE

EXHIBIT 31 - TRIPP SCOTT BILL

EXHIBIT 32 - LEGAL SERVICE RETAINER LETTE     OR PETITIONER
REPRESENTA TI ON PERSONALLY
-Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the f   , and the facts alleged
are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.




    Oat~             ()[_ .Jab
                  <s:      \
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL

IN RE: ESTATE OF                   PROBATE DIVISION

SIMON BERNSTEIN,

                     FILE NO. 502012CP004391XXXXSB

Deceased

AND

IN RE: ESTATE OF                   PROBATE DIVISION

                     FILE NO. 502011CP000653XXXXSB

SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,

Deceased


PROOF OF SERVICE OF EMERGENCY PETITION TO: FREEZE ESTATE ASSETS, APPOINT NEW PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVES, INVESTIGATE FORGED AND FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT AND
OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, RESCIND SIGNATURE OF ELIOT BERNSTEIN IN ESTATE OF SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN
AND MORE

       I CERTIFY that on May 06, 2013, a copy of the attached notice of PROOF OF SERVICE OF
EMERGENCY PETITION TO: FREEZE ESTATE ASSETS, APPOINT NEW PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES,
INVESTIGATE FORGED AND FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT AND OTHER INTERESTED
PARTIES, RESCIND SIGNATURE OF ELIOT BERNSTEIN IN ESTATE OF SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN AND MORE was
mailed by United States Registered or Certified Mail, return receip requested, postage
prepaid, to the entities on the attachment hereto.

       Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the f re


                                       ,
alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

       Signed on   ~~f°                 2013



                                                            B
EXHIBIT 1 - CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN THEODORE, ELIOT
                 AND SIMON BERNSTEIN
          EXHIBIT 1 - CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN THEODORE, ELIOT AND SIMON BERNSTEIN




Simon requested that Petitioner ask his brother Theodore directly why exactly he and his family were
not attending Passover at Petitioner's house with his mourning father and upon doing so this was the
exchange.




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:25 AM
To: Ted Bernstein


Subject: passover

Ted, I am stunned by your response to Passover with your family at our house or what once was your
family. Save the candy coated soliloquies of "Peaster" with the kids and their friends at your house as
excuse to why you cannot make it for the holiday. Why your family is not celebrating with your father
and their grandfather is what is beyond comprehension or why you did not invite dad to the now party
with your kids and their friends on "Peaster" at your house. Instead of the BS, be upfront and say what
your children have already said to me, that you will not be with dad with Maritza and have coalesced
with your siblings and their children and thus choose not to attend and further choose not to invite dad
and his girlfriend to your home based on that truth, which is steeped in insanity. I think what you're
doing, along with the gang of gals is harmful and borders elder abuse and no reason can justify the
flawed logic of your "tough/abusive love" strategy and the hurt you are causing your father.
Somewhere in the bible, it gives out some advice of honor and respect for your father and mother and
how this fits into that I have no idea, I in fact see it as wholly disrespectful, mean, it makes me want to
puke. This really breaks my fucking heart, as it is not a measure to help dad, as you think harming him
will help and thus it merely stands to harm. No response necessary.




From: Ted Bernstein [mailto:TBernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 6:14 PM
To: Eliot Ivan Bernstein


Subject: RE: passover

Eliot,

You are clearly upset about Passover this year and I am sorry for that; unfortunately, things are often
not as simple as they appear. I am sure you guys will have a great holiday, especially since Dad will be
with you guys. He had said that he was not going to be celebrating Passover this year.
Actually, if Candice has her vegetarian chopped liver recipe in electronic format, could you please ask
her to shoot me or Deborah a copy?

Thanks ...

Ted




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [iviewit@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 12:59 PM
To: Ted Bernstein


Subject: RE: passover

Ted, I am mad, mad not at Passover this or next year, here or in Israel, instead I am mad at the hurt
being caused to dad by his children and grandchildren. I certainly hope that by next year this whole
gang up on dad and deny him his grandchildren over his girlfriend is over as it is absolute lunacy. Again,
I see nothing but pain being caused to all and no chance of good from the approach for anybody and
with so limited days in the looking glass it just seems like somebody needs to step up and make this
cease.




From: Ted Bernstein [mailto:TBernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:45 AM
To: Eliot Ivan Bernstein

Subject: RE: passover

Eliot,

Although I normally do not like to have these discussions via email, it does seem important to say this in
a way that is documented in the record. None of this is directed at any person, in particular, and can be
shared with anyone you feel is necessary. What follows is simply intended to be a roadmap.

My primary family is Deborah and our four children. They come first, before anything and anyone. The
family I was born into is no longer, that is just a fact, it is not a matter of opinion, it just is. That family is
now made up of individuals and their families. My relationship with each individual person and their
family is unique and complex, the foundation based on mutual respect. It is that plain and simple. If any
party to any of those individual relationships is not okay with that, then it is likely that we will not have a
strong, meaningful relationship. It is likely that we will still have a relationship however, because we are
related and we will be brought together at different times, to engage in the things that people who are
related engage in (weddings, bar mitzvahs, graduations, illness and death).
With respect to every member of our extended family, my friends and my associates, it is important to
know that I cannot be influenced to act by guilt, force, shame, punishment or withholding of love or
support. If someone does not agree with what I think or how I act, that is okay. If someone feels it is
important to communicate their disagreement, that is okay, as long as it is done in a respectful and civil
way. I can handle almost anything as long as it is communicated with respect. It does not mean that I
will change how I think or how I act. I may, and I may not. I cannot force anyone to treat me and my
family with respect. I can only choose to limit my interaction.

I try not using words like 'never' and 'always', especially when dealing with people I care for. You end
up having to eat them, usually.

I do not care about what is said about me or my family, behind my back. When I hear it, and I always do
because it is intended to be heard, it serves to validate the condition of that relationship. I think, if the
people engaged in those discussions were more aware of how little I care, it might help them to move
on to another.

I do not gang up on anyone. I do not lead campaigns or posses. I wish I were that influential, but I am
not. I am not a mouthpiece or spol<esperson for members of the extended family and r cannot be used
to create alliances for the purpose of another's interaction with another. That has been learned
behavior that I choose to not be a part of.

Speaking of choices, they have consequences and let me be the first to say to anyone listening, "do
whatever the hell you want to do". Unless it is really impinging on me, I don't care what people do.
am not your judge or jury. I may not like what you do and you may not like what I do, and that is okay
too. Disagreements are okay, they happen in healthy relationships. If a person cannot respectfully
handle disagreements, whether it is over something benign or something intense, then it is likely going
to affect how much interaction we are going to have going forward. My actions speak louder than my
words.

So hopefully this is somewhat helpful in knowing my rules of engagement. They are pretty simple, I
think. The best thing about them is that if someone doesn't like them, then they don't have to have a
single thing to do with me or spend a nano-second of time with me. On the other hand, I think they are
pretty easy to accept and very straightforward.

I will give you an example of how I see the world and all of this working into it, something that might be
more on point with respect to our relationship. When you and Candice extended the Passover invitation
this year, and we declined it, all that was necessary to say to us was something like this:

"We are sorry you won't be with us this year. It is always nice to celebrate holidays with you guys, the
last two at your home were great. We will miss you and wish things could have worked out differently."

Pretty simple, right? If what I said above makes even a little sense, saying anything much more than
that has no impact.

Ted
From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit4@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:50 AM
To: 'Simon Bernstein'

Subject: FW: passover

From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@gmail.com ]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:18 PM
To: 'Ted Bernstein'

Subject: RE: passover

Ted, first I am again saddened at your response, which again is a long sofifoquy that fa ifs to address the
truth of the matter or answer the simple questions posed and attempts to instead conflate the matter in
defense of your messed up family values, which I see lies at the root of a deeper problem. I do not want
to delve into why you feel that the family you are born into no longer exists, however this is in "fact"
false and factually a fantasy or delusion. I for one exist and I know dad does but I guess if we do not exist
in your mind you do not have to have feelings for us, as it appears that goes hand in hand. You also
                                   11
seem to have confused the word extended family" to include friends and such, where the extended
family means, "The term extended family has several distinct meanings; a family that includes in one
household near relatives in addition to a nuclear family. In modern Western cultures dominated by
nuclear family constructs, it has come to be used generically to refer to grandparents, uncles, aunts, and
cousins, whether they live together within the same household or not.[1] However, it may also refer to a
family unit in which several generations live together within a single household ... In an extended family,
parents and their children's families often may live under a single roof. This type of joint family often
includes multiple generations in the family." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_family

This maligning of the definition confuses your letter to me for I believe you do not truly understand the
meaning of family but more so I feel sad from this statement, "and we will be brought together at
different times, to engage in the things that people who are related engage in (weddings, bar mitzvahs,
graduations, illness and death)." Your description of family does not describe at all what people who are
related engage in, mostly it is love or some instances hate, your version has it as a holiday or death
celebration and places family outside the meaning of family and more like a relationship with a dog.
Dogs that listen and obey the will of Ted according to your letter will have a relationship with you and
others that do not agree with you will be cast aside and not exist. What is dear is that you castigate
those you no longer consider worthy of being family without feeling or emotion and this will leave you
clinging to your very "primary" family as long as they do not fear that they are next on your chopping
block. Your "extended family," of non existing family members and your friends will always dwindle and
extension will feel more like retraction from this path, as people see how easily family can be discarded
they w ill not want to be next on the block either.
The rest of the letter appears to be for a general audience and relates not to my question or reason I
wrote to you, so I will not digress on it further. I do however want to say that to me you are family and
whether I disagree or like you at the moment or not that does not change that fact for me. I still cannot
understand how you cannot be a leader of your family both primary and extended and lead them to
resolve these issues which are hurting our father, or my father, who once was yours. I cannot
understand how you can hide behind others and this nonsense to justify your actions with this maligned
view on excommunicating your loved ones and your unloved family members, I am not sure what dad
has done to cause his non-existence to you, nor I but I feel sad you have taken a road to isolation for you
and dad and me.
EXHIBIT 2- EMAIL TO SPALLINA WITH UNNOTARIZED WAIVER
Eliot Ivan Bernstein

From:                           Eliot Ivan Bernstein <iviewit@iviewit.tv>
Sent:                           Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:10 AM
To:                             Robert L. Spallina, Esq. - Attorney at Law@ Tescher & Spallina, P.A.
                                (rspallina@tescherspallina.com)
Cc:                             'Simon Bernstein'; 'Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (caroline@cprogers.com)';
                                Michele M. Mulrooney - Partner@ Venable LLP (mmulrooney@Venable.com); 'Andy
                                Dietz'; 'Donna Dietz'
Subject:                        Estate of Shirley Bernstein
Attachments:                    Eliot I Bernstein.vcf, 20120515 Estate Simon Shirley Bernstein Doc.pdf

Tracking:                       Recipient                                                Read

                                Robert L. Spallina, Esq. - Attorney at Law@ Tesc her &
                                Spa llina, P.A. (rspal li na@tescherspallina.com)

                                'Simon Bernstein'                                        Read: 5/17/2012 9:27 AM

                                'Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire
                                (caro line@cprogers.com)'

                                Michele M. Mulrooney - Partner@ Venable LLP
                                (mmulrooney@Venable.com)

                                'Andy Dietz'

                                'Donna Dietz'




Sorry, I had Robert Spallina's email address wrong in the first email.

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

May17, 2012

Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
Tescher & Spallina, P.A.
Boca Village Corporate Center I
4855 Technology Way
Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33431

Hi Robert - attached is the Waiver of Accounting and Portions of Petition For Discharge; Waiver of Service of
Petition for Discharge; and Receipt of Beneficiary and Consent to Discharge. As I mentioned in the phone call,
I have not seen any of the underlying estate documents or my mother's will at this point, yet I sign this
document after our family call so that my father can be released of his duties as Personal Representative and
put whatever matters that were causing him stress to rest. For my trustees I would like the following
individuals in the following order to be trustees:

      1. Caroline Prochatska Rogers, Esq.
         3500 North Lake Shore Drive
         17th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60657
         (773) 804-9400 ext 19
         caroline@cprogers.com


                                                                1
    2. Michele M. Mulrooney, Esq .
       mmulrooney@Venable .com
       (will get new address shortly)

    3. Andrew & Donna Dietz
       2002 Circle Drive
       Hermosa Beach , California 90254
       (310) 410-0936 ext1271
       a ndyd@rockitca rgo. com


Please send copies of all estate documents to Caroline and Michele and if my dad would like them to keep the
information private and confidential, including from me, until some later point in time, you can arrange that with
them directly with my approval granted herein. Please also reply to this email to confirm receipt, a hard copy of
my signed document will be sent via mail.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of my family - Eliot


Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL (yes, two identically named)
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. - DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Uview.com, Inc. - DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. - FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. - DL
LC., Inc. - FL
Iviewit.com LLC - DL
Iviewit LLC- DL
Iviewit Corporation - FL
Iviewit, Inc. - FL
Iviewit, Inc. - DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@,i viewit. tv
http ://www.iviewit.tv
http://iviewit.tv/inventor/index.htm
http://iviewit.tv/word press
http://www.facebook .com/#!/iviewit
http://www.myspace.com/iviewit
http ://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot
http ://ww\v.voutube.com/user/eliotbemstein'?feature=m11um
http://,vww.TheDivineConstitution.com

Also, check out

Eliot's Testimony at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Part 1
http://wwv.·.youtube.com/watch?v=8CwOgogF4Fs&feature=player embedded


                                                             2
and Part 2 @ my favorite part
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ape Zc YNik&feature=related

and
Christine Anderson New York Supreme Court Attorney Ethics Expert Whistleblower Testimony, FOX IN THE
HENHOUSE and LAW WHOLLY VIOLATED TOP DOWN EXPOSING JUST HOW WALL STREET I GREED
STREET I FRAUD STREET MELTED DOWN AND WHY NO PROSECUTIONS OR RECOVERY OF STOLEN
FUNDS HAS BEEN MADE. Anderson in US Fed Court Fingers, US Attorneys, DA' s, ADA's, the New York Attorney
General and "Favored Lawyers and Law Firms"@
http://,vww.voutube.com/watch?v=6BlK73p4Ueo

and finally latest blog
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=594

Eliot Part 1 - The Iviewit Inventions @
http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=LOn4hwemqWO

Eliot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 1 with No Top Teeth, Don't Laugh, Very Important
http: //www.voutube.com/watch?v=DuIHODcwOfM

Eliot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 2 with No Top OR Bottom Teeth, Don't Laugh, Very Important
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOP3Ulq6mM

Eliot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 3 Very Important
https://www.facebook.com/iviewit?ref=tn tnnm#l/note.php?note id=319280841435989

Other Websites I like:

http: //www. deniedpatent. com
http://exposecorruptcourts .blogspot.com
http://www. judgewatch. org/index.html
http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com
http://www.corruptcourts.org
http://www.makeourofficialsaccountable.com
http://w"vw.parentadvocates.org
http://www. newvorkcourtcorruption. blogspot. com
http://cuom otarp.blogspot. com
http:/Avww.disbarthefloridabar.com
http://wwv.;.trusteefraud.com/trusteefraud-blog
http://www.constih1tionalguardian.com
http://www.americans4leirnlrefonn.com
http://www.iudicialaccountability.org
w"vw.electpollack.us
http://www.ruthrnpollackesq.com
W\Vw.HireLvrics.org
www .F acebook.corn/Roxam1e. Grinage
www.Twitter.com/HireLyrics
www.YouTube.com/HireLvrics
·www.YouTube.com/WhatlsThereLeftToDo
www.YouTube.com/RoxanneGrinage
www.BlogTalkRadio.com/Born-To-Serve
wvv\v.ireport.cm1.com/people/HireLyrics
http://www.VoteForGreg.us Greg Fischer
http://www.libertv-candidates.org/greg-fischer/
http://www.facebook.com/pagesNote-For-Greg/111952178833067
http://www.killallthelawyers.ws/law (The Shakespearean Solution, The Butcher)
                                                         3
"We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to
overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

"Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends
forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, these ripples
build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F. Kennedy

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know
not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

I live by the saying,

ELLEN G. WHITE
The greatest want of the world is the want of men, --men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls
are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as true to duty as the
needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall. -Education, p. 57(1903)

If you are one of these people, nice to be your friend - Eliot

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning,
warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight and it can happen to ordinary
Americans like you and me. You have no recourse nor protection save to vote against any incumbent endorsing such
unlawful acts.

CONF!])J'.NTIJ\LITY NOTICE:
 l'his message and any allm:hmcnts arc co\ crcd by the Electronic Conununieations PriYacy Act. 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521.
This e-mail message is intended mtly for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain eonridential and/or privileged
material. An~ unauthorized rc,·ie\Y. use. disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you arc not the intended recipient. please contact the
sender bY reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message or call (561) 245-8588. Ir you arc the intended recipient but do
not\\ ish tti receive communications through this medium, please so ad\'isc the sender immediate!\.

*The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments. The originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only; it may contain the originator' s
confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in
error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify
the originator inunediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver
this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch.

*Wireless Copyright Notice*. Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message. You must have the originator's full written
consent to alter, copy, or use this Message. Originator acknowledges others' copyrighted content in this Message. Otherwise,
Copyright © 2011 by originator Eliot Ivan Bernstein, iviewit(a)iviewittv and ·www.iviewit.tv. All Rights Reserved.




                                                                      4
                                                          _____
                                                     LAW        OFFICES

                                       TESCHER & SPALLINA,-P.A.
                                                    ,___ ·- - - - - -

                                                  BOCA VtUAG E CORPORATE CENTER    I
                                                  4855   T ECHNOU)(,y WAY, St:nE 720
                                                    BOCA RATON ,   Fl OHIDA 33431
    ATTORNEYS                                                                                                SUPPORT STAFF
    DONALD   R. TESCHEK                                  TEL 561 997 -7008                                   DIANE DUSTI!\
    ROBERT   L SPALl !NA                                FAx: 501-997-7308                                  KtMBERL y MORAN
    LAUREN   A.   GALVAN!                             TOLL FREI:: 888-997-7008                              St:ANN TESCHER
                                                     WWW. TESCHERSPALLINA.COM




                                                           May 10, 2012

             VIA U.S. MAIL
             Mr. Eliot Bernstein
             2753 NW 34th Street
             Boca Raton, FL 33434

                      Re:    Estate of Shirley Bernstein

             Dear Mr. Bernstein:

                    Enclosed for your signature is a Waiver of Accounting and Portions of Petition For
             Discharge; Waiver of Service of Petition for Discharge; and Receipt of Beneficiary and Consent to
             Discharge. It is necessary for each of the beneficiaries of your mother's Estate to sign this Waiver
             so that the Estate can be closed and your father can be released of his duties as Personal
             Representative. Please sign the Waiver and return it to our office in the enclosed, self-addressed
             envelope.

                      If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.




             RLS/km

             Enclosure




I
      IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
 fN RE: ESTATE OF               File No. 50201 ICP000653XXXXSB
 SHlRLEY BERNSTEIN,                     Probate Division
 Deceased .                             Division


   WAIYER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
  FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
     DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
              CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

        The undersigned, Eliot Bernstein, whose address is 2 753 NW 34 th Street, Boca Raton, FL 334 34, and
who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
        (a)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

        (b)      Waives the filing and service of a final or other accounting by the personal representative;

         (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
personal representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

        (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
manner of determining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
objections to the payment of such compensation;

        (e)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

        (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
thereof upon the undersigned;

        (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
undersigned was entitled; and

        (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

        Signed on   ~'} 5,                               , 2012.




                                                                                                           ·
                                                                                                         ·1)
                                                                                                         1
                                                                                                           .     ·. .   - -~~--~
EXHIBIT 3 -JILL UNNOTARIZED WAIVER




                ·,'
               ·3     /f; ,

                   Jr
      IN THE ClRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
 JN RE: EST A TE OF              File No. 50201 JCP000653XXXXSB
 SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                     Probate Division
 Deceased.                              Division


   WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
  FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
     DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
               CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

        The undersigned, Jill Jantoni, whose address is 210 I Magnolia Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035, and
who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
        (a)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the rightto have a final accounting;

        (b)      Waives the filing and service of a final or other accounting by the personal representative;

         (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountanis, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
personal representative, and the manner of detennining that compensation;

        (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
manner of determining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
objections to the payment of such compensation;

        (e)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

        (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
thereof upon the undersigned;

        (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of che estate to which the
undersigned was entitled; and

        (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

        Signed on    !J C/7Jt.r.:Jt. /st-                , 2012.


                                                                                 ~


                                                                           )AJA
                                                       Beneficiary


                                                       By~ILL IANTO~         -~1----11---
EXHIBIT 4 - SHERIFF DEPARTMENT INTAKE FORM
                                                                                                                                                                             C•

                                                       PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE                                                                                    ---
                                                                                                                                                                             WJ

                                                                CENTRAL RECORDS                                                                                              ~

                                                                                                                                                                             ---.....
                                                                                                                                                                             N
                                                          FSS EXEMPTIONS/CONf=IDENTIAL                                                                                       0
                                                                                                                                                                              ~

                                                                                                                                                                             w

r    1 '19.071 (2)(c) Active criminal intelligence/active criminal investigative   r    119. 071 (5 )(g)1 Biometric ldentifi ca1ion Information (Fingerprints, palm          '"'
                                                                                                                                                                             <'.'.>
     Information                                                                        prints, ar1d footprints)                                                             O')


                                                                                                                                                                              U'1

r    119.071(2)(e) Confession                                                      r    119.071(2)(1} Confidential Informants
                                                                                                                                                                              O')
                                                                                                                                                                              ~


                                                                                                                                                                              CD
                                                                                                                                                                              CD

r    365.171 (15) Identity of 911 caller or person requesting emergency            r    316.066(5)(a) Crash reports are confidential for period of 60 days after ~
     service                                                                            the report is filed                                                                   O')
                                                                                                                                                                              w
r    119.071(2){d) Suiveillance techniques, procedures, and personnel;             r    119.071(2}(h)(1} Identity of victim of sexual battery, lewd and
      inventory of law enforcement resources, policies or plans pertaining              lascivious offense upon a person less than 16 years old, child abuse,
     to mobilization, deployment or tactEcal operations                                 sexual offense

r    119.071 (2)(1) Assets of cr~me victim                                         r    985.04(1) Juvenile offender records

1-   119.071(5)(a)(5) Socfal security numbers he ld by agency                      r    119.0712(2} Persona1 infonnation contained in a motor vehicle record

r    119.071 (5)(b) Bank account#, debit, charge and credit card numbers           ,~   119.071{2)(b} Criminal intelligence/investigatrve information from a
                                                                                                                                                                              r.i
      heid by an agency                                                                 non-Florida criminar justlce agency                                                   m
                                                                                                                                                                              :z:
                                                                                                                                                                              --<
P'   395.3025(7}(a} and/or456:os7(7)(a) Medical information                        r · 394:4615(7) Mental health information                                                  :::0

                                                                                                                                                                               """
                                                                                                                                                                               r
                                                                                                                                                                              :0
                                                                                                                                                                               m
r    943.053/943.0525 NCIC/FC1C/FB! and in-state FDLEfDOC                          r    119.071(4}(cJ Undercover personnel                                                     r.i
                                                                                                                                                                               C)
                                                                                                                                                                              :0
                                                                                                                                                                              CJ
r    119.07(4){d) Extra fee if request is voluminous or requires extensive         r    119.071(4)(d){1) Harne address, telephone, soc . security#, photos of                  Cl)


     personnel, technology                                                              active/former LE personnel, spouses and children

r    Other:




                                                                                                                                                                               ""'
                                                                                                                                                                               ,_,,
                                                                                                                                                                               ""
                                                                                                                                                                                -.J

                                                                                                                                                                                -u
                                                                                                                                                                                C>
                                                                                                                                                                                C>
                                                                                                                                                                                ~

                                                                                                                                                                               -.,,,,.
j Case No:l2-121312         I [i'WCking No.: n/a                  I ~lerk Name/ID~ Hall/9205.                    I I Date: 1/31!2013            I
                                                                                                                                                    Re\<:ised 03/()4/20l 1
                                                                                                                                                                                C>
                                                                                                                                                                                ,,,.
                                                                                                                                                                                0
01/31/2013 12:08 5616883183                                                                       CEtHRALRECORDS                                            #2517 p 00 2/004
     -xi-._# ,. .. ..-n.u..a.o .....,u.i.:n... +.,wuv'Wl    1~J.L...t....J1.JJ
                                                                                                                                                                 Page 1 of3



                                            P A L M B E A CR                     C0     UN~ ~ S H E R I F F' B 0 F F I C 3         PAGE    1
            CABE NO. 121~1~12                                                     0    F F BNB E R E P 0 RT                CAsE NO. l2121l1~
                                                                                                                            Dl$l'OSITlON:          ZU~u
                                                                                                                                 PIVISIO~,         ROAP PATROL
        l'OliIClll Sll!l.V:t:CE CA!>L             ,.                                                                             w
        S!GNAL COP~: 68               Cl!ME CODE:                   NON Clt~Mi: COPE: pg
                                                                                CODS: 9568 09/13/12                 THU!tSDAY
        ZON!i!• C2l. C'lR.ID•            PEPUTY I.O. •  SS.2~ NAWI?: :i11\.0$H VlNClill:l'l'    A$$!S'l:: 'l:lMll: p ll.S5 A J.211 C l.522
        OCC'U1UU:;p 65'l'Wlillir.N PATE: 09/12/12 1 0830 HOU1(S ~ tlATE; 09/13/12 1 0100 HOUlt$
        li:XCEPT:rON TY~:e;,
        !NCl:D~ WCATION: 7020                    WONS HlU.D                       t.11      A:?i'· NO,:
                             c:rn.     l!OCA RATON                                     B'l'A'l'E: PL            Ul': 33496

        NQ. Oli'FENSli!S: 00 NO. Oli'FENDERS• tnt NO. VEEICL$$ STOLEN:                                 0     NO. PREl!!!Sli:S lilN'l'lii:Rl'l!l!   O
        LOCATION : RESlD~C~ • SINGLE fAMIL~
        NO. V!CTI~S' 00 NO. ARRSSTED• 0 FO~C~ lilrrRY: 0


        NAMli: LIST:

                                                  S:t:MON !!f.lRNST!i:IN                                     PO!!• l2/02/l93S
                                       SEX: M RACB: W HT: 505 WT: :!.SO lm• GRAY                                  lilYlil: BROWN
        11.J;:illPlONUAL .ilDtlIUilSS: 7020                 Ll'.ONSHEAD          WI.                BOCA     ~TON      FL   334~6             HOM!il PHONE:561 000-0000
        !!US:i:NllSS PBONm: 561 000·0000
        O'l'!mR                                   'rl::P   li!ll:RNSTEIN                                     POB: 08/27/1959
                                       illi!X: M !l.<l.Cli!: W HT;           Q WT:       0 l!:R: UNlQlOl'ffl ~: tmlCNOWlf
        RgSID~"lTI~          lll:lPRESS: 12344              MBLROSE              ~                SOCA RA'rON FL 33428                        HOM~ ~HON2;56l      2l3•2322
        BUSINBSS PHONE: 561 000-0000
        OTlil!:R                        lUiLlO'l' I l:llilRNSTEIN         DOB: 0!1/30/1963
                                 SEX: M RACE: W HT: SlO WT: 185 Jmr SROWN    lilTI:: HAZEL
        ll$!DENT!AI. M!PRESS 1 27.$3 NW 34'1'H                 ST    MCA RATON FL 33434                                                       HOMfl PHONB:56l 885-7627
        Bi:TSINlllSS PHONlil: Sol 000-0000
        OTB~                                      RACJ.!EL WALKER                                            !>OB: 03/0S/198&
                                 SEX: P RACE: W l!'l': 509 WT: 130                          )nl., li!~ONP   Bili:: SLt:ra
        RESIO~NTIA!.    .l\lJDRE$$• 99       SE MIZNlilR    li!P                                    BOCA RATON FL 33434                       HOME FHONlil:Sol 000-0000
        BUSINJ::SS l'HONlil• Sol 000-0000
        OTHER                             MARITZ UCCIO                                                       llOlll: 0'1/23/1966
                                 SEX: !!' ltACE• W MT• 502 tITt 12 ()                       HR~    !:IROWN       li:Ylll: BROW
        l.U:S!DJ::NTIAL ADPIU:SS• 7020          L'?ONS HEAD LA                                      :llOCA RATON l?t 3 3i 9 6                 HOMS FHONE:56l 305•2999
        BUSINESS PHONE: 561 000 • 0000
        OTHER                                LISA li'RI!i:IlST2IN                    DOB: lll/15/1957
                                     SEX: F RAC~: W HT: 501 NT: l.20 l'!ll.: SROWN       HE: BROWN
        11.:i;:s:i:DEN'l'I~ AllDP.liSS: 2142      CHURCHHILL t.A              IO'~RLtlNtl  !L 6003$
        Bus:rrnss PHONE: 561 000-0000




       http://oqs.pbso.org/index .cfrn ?fa=dspCase&frornrec=1&srhta=34edebc3696a7e97-918DA...                                                                    l/31/2013

                                                                                                                                                                                "
                                                                                                                                                                               ''
01/31/2013                 12:08 5618883183                                                                                               CENTRALRECOROS                                                                                     it2517 P.003/004
    '-"''..(L...I      T .&.\wlYYU.lS        '-''~0\.J      .,"4J..11U V1          l.Ll?lJl~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Page 2 of3

                                                             P ALM                  B t AC H C 0 ~NT Y S H lli R ! f F 1 S O FF I O :e:         PAGE    ~
          CASE NO. 12141312                                                                   0 U? ENS E RE P 0 RT                      CASX NO. l21213l2
                                                                                                                        DISPOS!TION: ZULU

                                         ON 9/13/12 A'l' 1211 i!O'lffiS, ! QSPONPED TO 7020 L'l'ONS !mAD l:.Alii,
                                   llNINCORPORA'?EP l'IOCA lU.'l'ON, ltL., ~ Mll:i' WI'l'H Tl'ZD '.!'!~STEIN ANP
                                   KIS SISTER ilNP ~ROTHER, iISA FRIEDS~~IN ANtl EtL:t:O'l' Bli:m'IST!IN,
                                   IN ~~.iNCli: TO A POLI CB ASSIST. TED ADV!S:W HIS !'M~QR, S%MON
                                   a~S'l'li:IN WAS T.AKJIN 'l'O DB~Y COMKtm'l'r't i!OSPITAt AT 1000 HOURS ON
                                   ;j'J.2/12 Ami PASS:iD AWAY AT 0100 BOUR$ ON 9/13/12.                                                                              m:      EXPUJNED
                                   WID'.U;: AT 'I'Blli HOSP'.l:TAI. BB WAB AI>V'.!'.SED BY ll!MOJ.i!' S CAU'l'Ak.P1., RAC'HEL
                                   W.i\LltER THAT SI~ON•S LIVE-IN G!lUiFlUEND, MA11.IT2A PUCCIO MJ:Glfl' HAVll:
                                   PROVl'.tl'.01 SIMON WITH A l'.AJ«~li:R 'fimN Pfm$0RI5lilD POSE OF ms
                                  ,:f.~!~tmf~~W/~)J~.~iffaJ.1 MSt>t~IClli1 A2 Tl.ELL AS ONll OF HD l!lU:SCIUBED f];D~f;{~!;~~·
                                  SI.EE!?ING PU.:US' WHICH COULl'.l OE CA11SED HIS D~!L                   HE SA:!:O m: vo:r:ezp
                                  i!IS CONClilRNB TO TMl!: lXlefORS AT DEL'.i?AY COI04UNI~Y HOSPITAL SU?
                                  'l'HEY ADVI$!:P THBRlil DI:O NM APPIU\R TO BB ANY SUSPICIOUS CIRCTJMBTANC!:S
                                  S~UNUINO Sn.ION'S DID!.1~ 1'NP 'l'HlilY WOULil ~OT Blil CONDUCTING~ AD''l'OSP~.
                                  ·nm CON'I'ACTED BO'Ml: A PRIVA'l'S COMli'A.Nlr J,ND nm PALM :a:u.ca COUNTY
                                  MEDICAL EXAM!N::R'S OFFICE RE~ING i!AVING AN Atl'TOSPY CONDUC'l'!O.
                                  !'10'.!'H 1'PV!SJW HE SHOULD COm:'.1;.C':r TH'Z PALM BEA~ COTJN'lY SHEIU19 'S Ol"li'lClil.
                                            Ai'TlilR SPltUXNG m>.m TJW, :c SPOKE w:r-ra l<AClIBL.           tlrunq, l.l'l'AR'l'lil:O
                                  BY 'l'lilLL.ING bdE TRA'.1' S:mml' SOli'li'li!IUil:> l"'R0/4 S<NlilRAL AI~$ '.1.'0 lNClitml!:,

                                                     ~~
                                  ~lii~=~s~~:~~~~~lli~ ~=:;:•,;fi .                                                                              ......;,::"~~i~~~t~~i;!\~~~OXIMA'J:~Y
                                  SIMON WAS RE~"frl>Y :i:'W\ClilD ON i1>1El~l:lifuhimc~k'!!l1> :f'9R 'l:!ra 11 ~,,,.,,,;f,,.;::o;;:i:'1C!!:;;!~• WHICH
                                  SHlli SAID lilVVBCTED HIS MENTAL i'llCUl.TI!i:S.               RA.CBRL Af>VISED WREN SHE
                                  ARRIVED AT SPliON 1 $ HOUSlil AT 0830 HOURS ON '112/12, SRlil FOUND SIMON
                                  LYING ON THE couc~ IN ~~E ~:i:vlNO ROOM. HE WA!! AWlUCE AND
                                  il~fl:t:'.N'G BOT Blil HAD A Vlilll.Y LOW lttl\RT Jil?M' AND WA9 WAWPJU; 0~
                                  W.S SURRO~lNGS.          RAcmI. SAlP $:iroll.TLY A.i'rall. H!illl. A:rntl'\nl.1:, MAJU'l'ZA
                                  Rn'O'RN!tD HOMB. 'fm:Y nP l\ :SRJ:lilli' ARGtlJGNT OVl!::R l!ln;TiraR OR NOT
                                  THEY SHoULD !!RING SU«>N TO 'l'Hli: :EIOSPITAL A$ f!<loGl{)q; SI.TS MJ\l<l"l'ZA
                                  PIP NOT              :a~LlliV!i1         :Em Nlil20EO TO GO TO                           ~ ~OSPITAL                       AT THIS TI)Q!:.
                                  RACHEL Sll.1.!l THAT S'Ht l!'IMAI.Ji~ '.!'OW MARITZA THAT SHlt 'Pl4\$ GOlNG TO TAX!i:
                                  l"..nl '.1'0 T:U: HOSPITAL Jill: lmRSiil:C.li'. BHlil SAID Slm ~li'1.' 1-'n HOlJSlil
                                  APPROXIMATELY 1000 l!O!JR.9 !'Oil. '.!'IU HOSPUAI.. RACHEL WlilN'l' ONTO ~Ul'..
                                  ~ '!'RAT MAlUTU PROV'IDED SIMON WITH ONii OF BER P~SClUl>ED ~:~.\~,~m:mi
                                  SLlilEPING PILLS ON Tlil!i N!OH'l' OF 9/8/12.                                                         SHE ALSO BAIO SIMON W)lg
                                  PRESCRlHil 100 mitmnT.~t!Wt1~~1n!finrrfilWJ1'.J@r:l~ifc~ PJ:LLS ON 9/7 /t2 Al1P Sfilil S!i1Ll!Mil
                                  THAT MAR:t'l'ZA WAS l?ROVI:OING SIMON W'.l:Ta i:.ARGER THgN PalilSClUEl!m DOSES
                                  OF fllliili(i;Jli~I:TI;;~uiilf.~rull\· llAc::m:t. "roiiD Mi: SHlil lllilt.~ THllE W:tn O:m,y
                                  30 PILLS t.lilli'T IN THlii BOT'l'Llll A'l' THE TIMll: Of Sn!ON' S OEA'l'H. I t.AT2R
                                  COUNT1'0 Tllli SOTTLB OF ~mm!mm~~f;l!lli!\!\IBJ::. -rm:~ ~ 90.s l'ILt.S IN Tlm

    .. <U-··•·-·•• • ••••••••-·•••••••••••••• • •••••••••• ••••• • ••••··-·-· ·- ·•·•· :-•• • ••·-•·••- ··· -···-··••• 0 •••••··•~··•unu••P••• t"'"'.,,.~, ,.,.,.,~•··----·-- ·- ---•·•••••••••••-··•-·••••••· ·,.~••- ...,, ...• ,. •. , ..... u ... ,,.,,..,...,




    http:J/oqs.pbso-org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&from:rec=l&srhta=34edebc3696a7e97-918DA...                                                                                                                                                            1/31/2013
01/31/2013                           12:07 5818883183                                                                                                                                      CENTRALRECORDS                                                                                                                        #2517 p. 004/004
    - ...., ".,,(..._,           r   .UJHU.l6                   '--"UQ\..J .J.~1.4.U.1V'"'1                        .1£...,1.;f;.,1.Jl~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Page 3 of3

                                                                                     P A L M B ! A C R                                                   C 0 U N 'l' Y                                $      H E R I                     ~      F' S                0 F F I C                          ~                                 PA!Jlil                   3
               CASE NO . l2l.2l.312                                                                                                                          0 F F                m ){         S li:            R E P O It T                                                                                 CABE NO. l2l2t3l2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      PIS~OStTION•                                 ZULU
                                                  BOTTtJI!               SHOW~NG THAT STI40N DID NOT TAKE MORE TaAN PRE:!leitIBED.
                                                                    l:'I' Sll011Wl:> ALSO J!.E NOTim Tll'l' I SPOKl: Wl't'H Et.L!O'l' 1 WHO SAW
                                                  RE        ~l\S           AT DINNER. WITH                                    SIMO~               ANV           MAR.I~ZA                    ON         ~/B/12 AN))                          OBSERVED
                                                  .!US li'A'l'HER ~Et.:t:t MllITZA 'l.'HA'l' Inl WAN'ml ON2 OF liER fa\:±,'l)~~ $tiEBl'ING
                                                  PILLS ~l!:CAO'SB HE                                           cour..o          NO'l'         BLP!E'.P.                   liL'LIO'l' SUP THEY ~ A BR.l'.l!'.F
                                                  ARGlJMli:NT OV'SR THIS AS MARTIZA                                                                      REFUS~P                     TO At.t.OW SIMON TO ?AIU; ONlil OF
                                                  HEii. l'!LLS INITil\l'..t.Y.                                               AT 'l'HIS 'l'IMli: SGT.                                        CAST~LI.I                      AR:!veP ON SCBNI!!
                                                  AND WAB A!l'lnS£D OF THl!l CASlil·
                                                        ~ illtllillil CONTACT WI'l'H VCD AND THE MEDICJU, 2XAMINER 1 $ OFFICE.
                                                  tu: WAS Al:)VISEP TO HAVM lxm CONTACT DEL!l.AY COMHONIT1' l!OSPJ:'l'Alo TO PUT
                                                  A HOLD ON SIMON'S 00.P:l: FOR i~llililiil\l2iifilllitj i'ROM THE !lm>ICAL 2XAM!Nn 1 S OFVIC.11:
                                                 WHO WOULD CliECl{ ON 'J:!Ilil SITtl'llrON 'l'Hlil NllXT DAY.                                                                                                          I WM JU.SO                           ~VISED
                                                  TO EMA!:µ A COPY OF T!!S Rli:POR'l' TO lSlt\~~lf;!:~\\~;'.i]H~ WITH TU MlilD:tCAL EXJ\Mlm!R' S
                                                  OFFICE. DELRAY CO?llMUNITY HOSP?T.Al. W.AS CONTA~ltD 1INP A HOLi) WU l'LAClilD
                                                  ON SIMON'S MDy MW ;;L~ftl\l;\i\t~\\m~~ WAS liMl\%LEl'J.
                                                           ~H:tS REPORT IS ~OR INFORMATION P'tllU'OSJ:S+
                                                  D/S HAUGH #8826
                                                  'l'l>.ANS; 9/t~/12 Il<l#44~5
                                                  P!Cl': ~/lJ/12 ® i7oo liRs •



        •.• ... --· ··-· · · · · ·--·---------·--- . . . . . .. . . .,. I   ·~• •.IH~n, .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . · - ---· u · · · · - · - - ------ · . ' .,., , ... . A , .... u . ~" •••• • -· ··- --- -- ---·-· . . . . . . .. . ..... u .. """ ·· .. ·~ ·-·. --··--· - - -- •••• •• -· -- ••• -- • • -- I' •• ' "~~· " ' ~------- - ·· • •
                                                                                                                                                                        Fi=tt!d by ample~ ;i:a #; ~;:os                                                             OJ:r        J=114zy Jl. ;<QlJ l•"0315lP.V
        • ··•··••• • • ·····•• ••• • •·• · • • • - • • . _ , , ,.,,,,., , ,, • ., ...1•.1.,,.,, , . .•• >.•   •• •••••••• •• ••• •• •••••••••••••••••r • n " "'''"''"'"'· • • • •« .. ••••••••••·•••                  • ••••••• ••1'•rYP4"\V .. u•~,,.•••.,.~ •• • ••••••••••••••••••••••• • •• · ~•"'"'v ... , .. ., ,. " ' • U•••••••••• ••




         http://oqs.pbso.org/index.c:fin?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1&srhta=34edebc3696a7e97-918DA...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1/31/2013
EXHIBIT 5 - EMAILS REGARDING LOST llT
Eliot Bernstein

Subject:                                       FW: Call with Robert Spallina to morrow/Wednesday at 2pm EST




From: Robert Spallina [ mailto:rspallina@tescherspallina.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:34 PM
To: Jill Iantoni; Eliot Bernstein; Ted Bernstein ; Ted Bernstein ; Pamela Simon; Lisa Friedstein
Subject: RE: Call with Robert Spallina tomorrow/ Wednesday at 2pm EST

As discussed, I need the EIN application and will process the claim. Your father was the owner of the policy and we will
need to prepare releases given the fact that we do not have the trust instrument and are making an educated guess that
the beneficiaries are the five of you as a result of your mother predeceasing Si. Luckily we have a friendly carrier and
they are willing to process the claim without a copy of the trust instrument. A call regarding this is not necessary. We
have things under control and will get the claim processed expeditiously after we receive the form.

Thank you for your help.



Robert L. Spallina , Esq.
TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.
4855 Technology Way, Suite 720
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: 561-997-7008
Facsimile: 561-997-7308
E-mail: rspallina@tescherspallina.com


If you would like to learn more about TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A., please vis it o ur website at www.tescherspallina.com


The information contained in this message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT , YOU
ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION , DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by e-mail or
telephone . Thank you.
From: Ted Bernstein [mailto:tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 9:59 AM
To: Lisa Friedstein (lisa.friedstein@gmail.com); 'Jill Iantoni'; Eliot Bernstein (iviewit@gmail.com); Eliot
Bernstein (iviewit@iviewit.tv); Pamela Simon
Cc: Ted Bernstein
Subject: Life Insurance - agreement

Hello,

Good news; the Heritage Union Life Insurance company is ready to make payment on the policy that
insured Dad. There was an exhaustive search for the original trust document from 1995, which is the
beneficiary of the policy owned by Dad. Since we have not been able to locate it, the attached
agreement will permit the insurance company to make payment to a Trust account that will then
distribute the proceeds in equal parts to the 5 of us. Robert Spallina recommended that I distribute this
document so it can be reviewed by each of you, signed and then it can be submitted to the
carrier. Please sign the document where applicable. Then email to me the signature page and Fedex
the original to Robert Spallina's office. Once we have all signatures, the carrier should release proceeds
quickly.

TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A .
Boca Village
Corporate Center I
4855 Technology Way
Su ite 720
Boca Ra t on, Florida 33431

Call me with any questions.


Tee{




I ,jfc Insurance Conc<'pts
950 Peninsula Corporate Circle. Suite 3010
Boca Raton. FL 33487
Tel: 56 1.988 .8984
Toll Free: 866.395 .8984
Fax: 561.988 .0833
Email: Tbernstein(ii'lifelnsurnnceConcepts.com

www.LifelnsuranceConc<'pts.com

This communication (including attachments) may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the recipient(s) named
above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, dissemination or distribution of this
communication is prohibited and may be subject to legal action. Please contact the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies
of the original message.


On Dec 6, 2012, at 10:00 AM, "Jill lantoni" <jilliantoni@gmail.com> wrote:

Great. Thanks Ted for handling this!!

Jill

From: Pam Simon [mailto:psimon@stpcorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:52 AM

To: Jill lantoni
Cc: Ted Bernstein; lisa.friedstein@gmail.com; iviewit@gmail.com; iviewit@iviewit.tv


Subject: Re: Life Insurance - agreement

Thanks theo - will email u signed one today and fed x spallina - do u have his address?

From: Ted Bernstein [mailto:tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 1:38 PM
To: 'Pam Simon'; Jill lantoni
Cc: lisa.friedstein@gmail.com; iviewit@gmail.com; iviewit@iviewit.tv

Subject: RE: Life Insurance - agreement

Hi> his address is:

TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.
Boca Village
Corporate Center I
4855 Technology Way
Suite 720
Boca Raton, Florida 33431

From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:57 PM
To: Ted Bernstein; 'Pam Simon'; 'Jill lantoni'
Cc: lisa.friedstein@gmail.com; iviewit@iviewit.tv

Subject: RE: Life Insurance - agreement

Thanks Ted, I and my counsel have his address and phone and stuff but he is refusing to talk to my and
my children's attorneys who have already contacted him for information. Since I and the children are
represented by counsel at this point he will need to deal with them regarding all these matters so I am
not sure how anything can transpire while he refuses to release documents or meet with counsel, as I




                                                                                                                                                 ..
                                                                                                                                                •.:·


                                                                                                                                               ~11~-;
                                                                                                                                              ~Vo
                                                                                                                                               7
                                                                                                                                                            .
                                                                                                                                                       '":~,;,."·
                                                                                                                                                            ;       i
mentioned he told them already that he did not know me or my children first and then scheduled a
meeting and cancelled and refuses to reschedule. Not sure what is up but I would be careful as Executor
of any transactions that have not first gone through our counsel in any regard to any assets, etc. until
these things are resolved. Let me know. eb

From: Ted Bernstein [mailto:tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:50 PM
To: 'Eliot Ivan Bernstein'; 'Pam Simon'; 'Jill lantoni'
Cc: lisa.friedstein@gmail.com; iviewit@iviewit.tv

Subject: RE: Life Insurance - agreement

Hi Eliot >probably the best thing to do is to forward the document to the counsel you retained, if you
have not done so already. This should be fairly simple and straightforward for them to review. Speak to
you soon ...
               SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE

        This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release is made and entered into this ___ day of

-----~            2012, at Chicago, Illinois by and between each of the following defined entities and

individuals.

                                          PARTIES DEFINED

        "TED", as defined herein, refers to and means Ted S. Bernstein an individual

residing in Boca Raton, Florida, his heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "PAM'', as defined herein, refers to and means Pamela B. Simon an individual

residing in Chicago, Illinois, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "ELIOT" as defined herein, refers to and means Eliot I. Bernstein, an individual

residing in Boca Raton, Florida, his heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "TILL" as defined herein, refers to and means Jill M. Iantoni, an individual

residing in Highland Park, Illinois, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "LISA" as defined herein, refers to and means Lisa S. Friedstein residing in Highland

Park, Illinois, an individual, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "ALLY" as defined herein, refers to and means Alexandra L. Bernstein residing in

White Plains, New York, an individual, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "ERIC" as defined herein, refers to and means Eric D. Bernstein residing in Boca

Raton, Florida, an individual, his heirs, successors and/or assigns.


        "MICHAEL" as defined herein, refers to and means Michael A Bernstein residing

in Boca Raton, Florida, an individual, his heirs, successors and/or assigns.
        "MOLLY" as defined herein, refers to and means Molly N. Simon residing in

Chicago Illinois, an individual, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.


        "THE ELIOT CHILDREN'' as defined herein, refers to and means Joshua, Jacob

and Daniel Bernstein residing in Boca Raton, Florida, all individual(s), their heirs,

successors and/or assigns.


        "THE TILL CHILD" as defined herein, refers to and means Julia Iantoni residing

in Highland Park, Illinois, an individual, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.


        "THE LISA CHILDREN'' as defined herein, refers to and means Max and Carley

Friedstein residing in Highland Park, Illinois, an individual(s), both heirs, successors

and/or assigns.



                                           DEFINITIONS

        "Agreement", as defined herein, refers to and means, this Settlement Agreement and

Mutual Release.

        "Party" or "Parties", shall refer to and mean an individual defined above whom

shall sign on and be bound by this Settlement Agreement, and Parties shall refer to the

individuals collectively.

        "Trust", as defined herein refers to and means the Simon L. Bernstein

Irrevocable Insurance Trust dtd 6/21/95.

                                           RECITAL'S

        WHEREAS, the Parties are all of the children and grandchildren of the marriage of Simon L.

Bernstein and Shirley Bernstein;

        WHEREAS, Simon L. Bernstein established the Trust in 1995 for the benefit of his wife,
Shirley Bernstein, and th~ir children, the Parties;

         WHEREAS, Shirley Bernstein predeceased Simon L. Bernstein, and Simon L. Bernstein

passed away on September 13, 2012;

         WHEREAS, after a diligent search by the Parties, an executed copy of the Trust can not be

found;

         WHEREAS, the Trust is the beneficiary of life insurance policy number 1009208 issued by

Heritage Union Life Insurance Company (the "Insurer") on the life of Simon L. Bernstein (the

"Policy");

         WHEREAS, the Parties desire to achieve the intent of Simon L. Bernstein on or about the

date of the Trust and resolve any and all disputes and controversies that have arisen or may arise

regarding the distribution of the death benefit proceeds of the Policy.

                                            WITNESSETH

NOW TIIEREFORE, in consideration of the following covenants, promises and obligations, as well

as other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged; it is

agreed by and between the Parties as follows:

                                             COVENANTS


    1. TED is appointed and hereby accepts the appointment to act as Trustee of the Trust.

    2. That TED, as Trustee, shall open a bank account in the name of the Trust (the "Trust
       Account").

    3. That TED, as Trustee shall deposit or direct the Insurer to deposit the death benefit proceeds
       of the Policy into the Trust Account.

    4. That TED, as Trustee, shall pay expenses of the Trust including the cost of filing a tax return
       from the proceeds in the Trust Account.

    5. That TED, as Trustee, shall distribute all remaining proceeds in the Trust Account equally (in
       20% shares) to each of TED, PAM, ELIOT, TILL and LISA
6. That TED, as Trustee, upon completing the distribution in if5 above and the filing of the tax
   return contemplated in if4 above shall close the Trust Account.

7. Upon receipt of the Settlement Agreement executed by all Parties and upon fulfillment of
   all of the covenants and obligations contained in ~l through ~6 above, TED, PAM,
   ELIOT, JILL, AND LISA, ALLY, ERIC, :MICHAEL, MOLLY, THE ELIOT
   CHILDREN, THE JILL CHILD AND THE LISA CHILDREN and each of them in their
   own individual capacity, shall respectively acquit, release, and forever discharge TED,
   both individually and as Trustee, and each and every other Party from any and all claims,
   demands, liabilities, obligations, causes and causes of action of whatever kind or nature,
   known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected by each of them, which each of them now
   owns or holds or at any time heretofore owned or held as against each other arising out of
   any matter related to or associated with the Policy and/or the Trust, and without limiting the
   generality of the foregoing, all claims, demands, liabilities, obligations, causes and causes of
   action arising out of or in any way connected with: a) the receipt of the death benefit
   proceeds of the Policy by the Trust; b) arising out of or in any way connected to the operation
   and management of the Trust, or the actual terms of the Trust in the event it should be located
   subsequent to the date of this Agreement regardless as to whether all of the covenants and
   obligations of this Agreement have been executed to completion.

8. All demands and notices given hereunder shall be sent by mail addressed to the respective
   Parties with a copy to David B. Simon, The Simon Law Firm, 303 E. Wacker Dr. , Suite 210,
   Chicago, IL 60601-5210.

9. The Parties hereby represent to one another that they have full power and authority to enter
   into this Settlement Agreement and carry out their obligations hereunder. All Parties further
   represent that this Settlement Agreement has been duly executed and delivered.

10. This Settlement Agreement embodies the entire understanding of the Parties. All prior
    correspondence, conversations, memoranda and agreements have been merged into and
    replaced by this Settlement Agreement.

11. If a Party breaches this Settlement Agreement, the breaching Party shall reimburse the non-
    breaching Parties for all reasonable costs, attorney's fees, and expenses incurred by them in
    enforcing the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

12. This Settlement Agreement shall (i) be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
    of the State of Illinois and all claims or controversies arising out of this Settlement
    Agreement shall be brought within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of Illinois; (ii) inure
    to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties themselves, as well as their respective heirs,
    executors, predecessors, successors and assigns.

13. All Parties have been represented by counsel, or have had the opportunity to seek the advice
    of counsel, and if they have sought counsel then such counsel has reviewed this Settlement
    Agreement and recommended that their respective clients enter into it.

14. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which, when
    taken together, shall constitute an original. Facsimile signatures of the Parties shall as valid
    and binding as original signatures.
15. Should any provision contained in this Agreement be deemed illegal or unenforceable as a
    matter of law, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain binding and continue in full
    force and effect.

16. The signatories state that they have read and understand this Settlement Agreement and that
    they intend to be legally bound by the same.
Agreed and accepted this date and year first written above.




TED S. BERNSTEIN                            ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN

Witness:  ~~~~~~~~
                                            Witness:
                                                      ~---------

Address:                                    Address:


PAMELA B. SIMON                             JILL M. !ANTONI

Witness:  ~~~-----~
                                            Witness: _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Address:                                    Address:


LISA S. FRIEDSTEIN                          ALEXANDRA L. BERNSTEIN

Witness:- - - - - - - - -                   Witness: - - - - - - - - -
Address:                                    Address:   ~-------~




ERIC BERNSTEIN                              MICHAEL BERNSTEIN

Witness:  ~--------
                                            Witness:  ~--------

Address:                                    Address:

MOLLY N. SIMON                              THE ELIOT CHILDREN

                                            Eliot I. Bernstein, Parent

                                            Candace Bernstein, Parent
Witness:- - - - - - - - -
Address:                                    Address:

THE JILL CHILD                              THE LISA CHILDREN

Jill Iantoni, Parent                        Lisa Frendstein, Parent

Guy Iantoni, Parent                         Jeffrey Friedstein, Parent

Address:                                    Address:
EXHIBIT 6 - EMAILS REGARDING LOST HERITAGE POLICY
From: "Eliot Bernstein" iviewit@gmail.com
Date: January 19, 2013, 5:08:29 PM CST
To: '"lisa friedstein'" <lisa@friedsteins.com>, "Ted Bernstein" <tedbernstein@gmail.com>, Pamela Beth
Simon <psimon@stpcorp.com>, "Jill M. lantoni" jilliantoni@gmail.com
Cc: "Christine P.   Yates~   Director@ Tripp Scott" <CTY@trippscott.com>

Subject: RE: UPDATE> HERITAGE INSURANCe

I am represented by counsel at this point and so Sunday does not work for me as I would like to have my
counsel attend, please let me know of a new time during week day business hours. I would appreciate
no further meetings without me or my counsel regarding any estate matters or decisions. Eliot




From: Robert Spallina [mailto:rspallina@tescherspallina.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:16 PM
To: Ted Bernstein; Lisa Friedstein; Pam Simon; Jill lantoni; Christine Yates
Cc: Kimberly Moran

Subject: Heritage Policy

I received a letter from the company requesting a court order to make the distribution of the proceeds
consistent with what we discussed. I have traded calls with their legal department to see if I can
convince them otherwise. I am not optimistic given how long it has taken them to make a decision.
Either way I would like to have a fifteen minute call to discuss this with all of you this week. There are
really only two options: spend the money on getting a court order to have the proceeds distributed
among the five of you (not guaranteed but most likely probable), or have the proceeds distributed to
the estate and have the money added to the grandchildren's shares. As none of us can be sure exactly
what the 1995 trust said (although an educated guess would point to children in light of the document
prepared by Al Gartz in 2000), I think it is important that we discuss further prior to spending more
money to pursue this option. Hopefully I will have spoken with their legal department by Thursday.
would propose a 10:30 call on Thursday EST. Please advise if this works for all of you.

Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
TESCH ER & SPALLINA, P.A.




From: Ted Bernstein [mailto:tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:26 PM
To: 'Pam Simon'
Cc: Jill lantoni; lisa friedstein; Eliot Ivan Bernstein



Subject: RE: DO NOT FORWARD THIS> UPDATE> HERITAGE INSURANCe

Keep in mind that this is the policy that lapsed for more than 6 months and was miraculously re-instated
a few months before Dad died. It is in our best interest to get this claim paid as soon as possible.

With that being said, I am going to suggest that we get the agreement we were going to use to the point
where it is ready to present to the court. We already have an agreement in existence that simply needs
to be tailored to our circumstances. Robert Spallina can clean it up to reflect what we said on Thursday
and then it can be reviewed by each person and their legal counsel. The only way this does not make
sense is if one or more of us are intending to not be part of an agreement stating that 5 children wiff be
equal beneficiaries. Based on what I heard on Thursday, the only sensible option is to ensure these
proceeds are not included in Dad's estate. With an agreement, each of us has the ability to do what is
best for his or her family, without impacting anyone else.

This way, the work can begin that needs to be done while we are trying to schedule the call around the 6
of us.

Let me know if you see any reason to wait but tomorrow I will ask Robert Spallina to fit the agreement
to our circumstances and begin to circulate it. If anyone is going to use a guardian for their minor child
or children, it is probably a good idea to start that process too .

Ted




On Jan 27, 2013, at 6:27 PM, "Ted Bernstein" <tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com> wrote:

Keep in mind that this is the policy that lapsed for more than 6 months and was miraculously re-instated
a few months before Dad died. It is in our best interest to get this claim paid as soon as possible.

With that being said, I am going to suggest that we get the agreement we were going to use to the point
where it is ready to present to the court. We already have an agreement in existence that simply needs
to be tailored to our circumstances. Robert Spallina can clean it up to reflect what we said on Thursday
and then it can be reviewed by each person and their legal counsel. The only way this does not make
sense is if one or more of us are intending to not be part of an agreement stating that 5 children will be
equal beneficiaries. Based on what I heard on Thursday, the only sensible option is to ensure these
proceeds are not included in Dad's estate. With an agreement, each of us has the ability to do what is
best for his or her family, without impacting anyone else.
This way, the work can begin that needs to be done while we are trying to schedule the call around the 6
of us.

Let me know if you see any reason to wait but tomorrow I will ask Robert Spallina to fit the agreement
to our circumstances and begin to circulate it. If anyone is going to use a guardian for their minor chi ld
or children, it is probably a good idea t o start that process too.

Ted




From : Ted Bernstein [mailto:tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 8:47 AM
To: Pam Simon
Cc: Jill lantoni; lisa friedstein; Eliot Ivan Bernstein

Subject: Re : DO NOT FORWARD THIS> UPDATE> HERITAGE INSURANCe

I believe I do have the agreement to forward to him. I will let him know to include me in the agreement.
Ally, Eric and Michael will sign what is necessary for them to sign.

Ted
561-988-8984
tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com




On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:31 AM, "Pam Simon" <psimon@stpcorp.com> wrote:

Agreed - Theo- do you have the agreement for spallina to tweak? I believe we all signed but Eliot so far
so if you could forward the doc to spa!!ina we can get this done. Lets not spend extra dollars on lawyers
we don't have to as it comes out of our pockets - lets all agree to sign it and move on.

Also, now that we have the contents appraisal should we all meet at the house(s) to divide up? If so,
what dates work for everyone?

Xoxo
From: Robert Spallina [mailto:rspallina@tescherspallina.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Ted Bernstein; Lisa Friedstein; Pam Simon; Jill lantoni; Christine Yates
Cc: Kimberly Moran

Subject: RE: Bernstein - E/O Shirley Bernstein & E/O Leon Bernstein: Heritage Policy

I am following up on our telephone conference from last week. Ted has contacted me about circulating
a draft of the settlement agreement that would be presented to the court. Again, prior to preparing an
agreement, I want to make sure that you are ALL in agreement that the proceeds do not come to the
estate. I can tell you that your father planned his estate intending and believing that the five children
would split the proceeds equally. We would like to see his wishes carried out and not have the proceeds
paid to the estate where they could be subject to creditor claims prior to being split in equal shares
among the grandchildren. Please advise if you are in agreement to move forward to petition the court
for an order that would split the proceeds equally among the five of you.

Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.




From: Christine Yates [mailto:cty@TrippScott.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:17 AM
To: 'Robert Spallina'
Cc: 'Eliot Ivan Bernstein'

Subject: RE: Bernstein - E/O Shirley Bernstein & E/O Leon Bernstein: Heritage Policy

Robert, after discussions with my client, he is not in agreement with the plan proposed below. A more
formal letter will follow.




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:10 PM
To: Robert L. Spallina,   Esq.~   Attorney at Law@ Tescher & Spallina, P.A.
(rspallina@tescherspallina.com); Ted Bernstein; Pamela Beth Simon (psimon@stpcorp.com); Lisa
Friedstein; Jill M . lantoni (jilliantoni@gmail.com); Jill M. lantoni (lantoni_jill@ne.bah.com); Christine P.
Yates~   Director@ Tripp Scott (CTY@trippscott.com)

Subject: Eliot Heritage policy Analysis

This is my analysis on the Heritage payout thus far. First, I would like to review the insurance policy as
well as the official statements respecting investment returns, use of returns to pay premiums and loans
taken from the policy. I understand Ted and Pam have the policy, and do not understand why Mr.
Spallina thinks it is curious that I also want to review these materials. Second, I understand the
expressed concerns that if the proceeds are paid to the estate then the proceeds wou ld be subject to
the claims of creditors of the estate. It is my understanding that the "plan" is to have the proceeds
payable to a trust to avoid creditor claims; however, I have also been counseled that if a trust is utilized
an estate creditor can challenge the trust transaction as a fraudulent conveyance used to avoid the
creditor's claim.

We have been told that Dad designated his 1995 trust as his beneficiary with Heritage. We were also
told that that trust cannot be located. I would also like to review an affidavit that indicates the precise
steps that were taken and by whom and with whom to locate the 1995 trust, and I would imagine that
Heritage will require the same. Heritage, we were told, is now saying that the proceeds may have to go
to the State under the applicable escheat laws, so Mr. Spallina is telling us that if Heritage accepts a new
trust with all potential beneficiaries agreeing to the mechanism; that Heritage may pay the proceeds to
this new trust and not to the State. I have been told that the reason the law requires a trust document
(and not simply statements from someone who claims they saw the trust) is that it demonstrates Dad's
desires, and because Dad had the right to change his mind and thus the beneficiaries under the trust,
nothing short of the actual 1995 trust document may be sufficient to Heritage.

Last, because the 1995 trust document cannot be located, the proceeds should go to the beneficiaries
under {Article IV 2j] and [Article Ill] of Dad's will, which picks up insurance proceeds under failed
beneficiary designations. Under Dad's wi ll and trust, these amounts, like the rest of his estate goes to his
grandchildren in equal parts. Thus, to t he extent it is decided to use a new trust to avoid the escheat
laws, the only beneficiaries that may be acceptable to me is the grandchildren. As I stated above, I and
my siblings should remain concerned that any estate creditor could challenge the transaction as a
fraudulent conveyance. Also, having the 5 children as beneficiaries with each having the right to disclaim
in favor of their children (i.e., Dad's grandchildren) is not acceptable for 2 reasons. First, such a scheme
is not consistent with Dad's wishes under his will and trust agreement. Whatever Dad may have
provided under the 1995 trust is both unknown and not relevant as stated above. The second reason is
simple economics. My kids would get a 33% distribution under the proper method, but only 20% under
the other scheme.

Regards,

Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
From: Ted Bernstein [mailto:tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com)
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:49 PM
To: Eliot Bernstein (iviewit@gmail.com)
Cc: 'Pam Simon'; Jill lantoni; Lisa Friedstein (lisa.friedstein@gmail.com); ROBERT SPALLINA
(rspallina@tescherspallina.com)

Subject: Heritage policy

Eliot,

I have pasted your analysis re the Heritage policy below. The email did not get to me, not sure why.

The problem with your analysis is that it is not factually correct and therefore, you are drawing
conclusions that are incorrect.

Dad's desires concerning the policy are crystal clear. There has never been a question concerning his
desire. He named his irrevocable trust as beneficiary of the policy and he never changed that. He was
the owner. He could have changed it as often as he wanted. He never did, not ever.

In 1995, Dad did not have 10 grandchildren. Therefore, it was never his intent, concerning this policy, to
leave it to all of his grandchildren.

He chose Robert SpaJJina and Don Tescher to be his estate and tax attorneys as well as his personal
representatives. Robert Spallina has told us on several occasions what Dad's wishes were for this policy.
Dad was well aware of this policy. He was intimately aware of who owned it and who he named as
beneficiary. When he was considering a life settlement, all of this information was part of those
discussions.

As Robert has stated, Heritage' s policy when it comes to a lost irrevocable trust, is to not pay the
proceeds to the estate. What you are saying here is not correct: "Last, because the 1995 trust
document cannot be located, the proceeds should go to the beneficiaries under {Article IV 2j] and
[Article Ill] of Dad's will, which picks up insurance proceeds under failed beneficiary designations. Under
Dad's will and trust, these amounts, like the rest of his estate goes to his grandchildren in equal parts"

You are drawing conclusions for Heritage when you say, "nothing short of the actual 1995 trust
document may be sufficient to Heritage." Why don't we let Heritage speak for Heritage, which I believe
has already been done?

There is no fraudulent conveyance. These proceeds are not part of Dad's estate, they never were and
Heritage has stated they do not intend to pay these proceeds to the estate of a person who clearly did
not want them in his estate.
In late July of 2012, Dad executed his planning documents. He could have easily changed the beneficiary
of the Heritage policy to be included in his estate. He was the owner, he could have done that with one
change form. He did not. If he did not want to be bothered to do it himself, he could have asked
Robert, his PR, to do it. People do this every day. Dad did not. Therefore, the proceeds remaining OUT
of his estate, NOT payable to his grandchildren (who received everything else), is consistent with Dad's
wishes. This policy is not in the domain of his will and trust agreement. To bring proceeds of a life
insurance policy into the estate of a man who sold life insurance his entire career would go against
everything Dad told every client he ever sold life insurance to during his career. It is unimaginable.

Therefore, the economic analysis is not correct. It simply is not necessary to address as it was never an
option in this scenario.

This needs to be brought to resolution. Not only is it simple, it is black and white. Is your counsel
involved in this matter for you? If so, has she spoken with Robert and communicated what you have
said?

We are going to do what is necessary to have the proceeds paid where they were intended to be paid,
as quickly as possible now. If you think I am factually incorrect about any of this, please either call me or
email me and explain where I may be wrong. It goes without saying, this is not my expertise. I am
processing the same information that everyone else is working with and this is how I see it.

Ted




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]

Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 6:47 PM

To: Ted Bernstein; Theodore S. Bernstein (TBernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com); Pamela Beth Simon
(psimon@stpcorp.com); Lisa Sue Friedstein (lisa@friedsteins.com); Jill lantoni; Jill M. lantoni
(lantoni_jill@ne.bah.com); Robert L. Spallina,   Esq.~    Attorney at Law@ Tescher & Spallina, P.A.
(rspallina@tescherspallina.com); Christine P.    Yates~   Director@ Tripp Scott (CTY@trippscott.com); Irina
Roach (idr@trippscott.com)

Subject: Heritage Policy

Thanks for your response to my analysis of the Heritage matter; however, I believe your comments
assume I do not understand the trust concept and its utility, and your analysis is based on the theory of
estate planning using trusts and not the importance of having the actual trust document. I started by
again requesting a copy of the Heritage policy. I need to review the policy's provisions respecting how
death benefit proceeds are dealt in situations where a beneficiary designation fails. This is a simple
request. You and Pam indicated that you each have a copy of the policy. Robert said he has a copy of the
policy. PLEASE send a copy to me. I assure you that nothing will transpire until I have reviewed the
policy.

I have been advised that in situations where a beneficiary designation fails, an insurer will in almost all
situations pay the proceeds into the probate court and ask the court to determine to whom the
proceeds are payable and ask for a release. The position I took in my prior email is clear; that a probate
court w ill likely decide that the proceeds will go to the grand children through the estate and the pour
over trust. This analysis troubles you because the Heritage proceeds would thus be considered an estate
asset and subject to creditor claims. I understand your concerns. But unless the 1995 trust document is
located, and unless the Heritage policy provides otherwise, this is how it most likely will play out.

Your comments about Dad's desires and his estate planning experience are simply not relevant;
however, I could understand that you may wish to make this argument to the probate court. All of the
meetings, time and energy being spent trying to come up with a way to convince Heritage to pay the
benefits pursuant to what Robert believes the 1995 trust said is wasted energy, unless Heritage agrees
to pay the proceeds pursuant to some form of settlement and release agreement. If you want me to
even consider such an arrangement, in addition to reviewing the Heritage policy, I will require a letter
from Heritage specifically stating that Heritage may make the proceeds payment under such an
arrangement. It should be easy to get such a letter if Heritage is willing to consider such an
arrangement.

Now that you know my position, I will respond to your comments respecting my analysis in my prior
email. We all know that like you and Pam, Dad spent his career in the insurance business. I also spent
years in the insurance business. In fact, Dad was one of the best and most innovated at it. Just look at his
and your company's (LIC) web site for confirmation. As an expert, Dad understood all the benefits of
designating a trust as the beneficiary under a life policy. You keep the proceeds out of the estate and
probate process, and the proceeds are not subject to creditor claims. You and Pam and even I
understand these concepts too. So does Mr. Spallina, as an expert estates lawyer. All of us (you, Pam,
Robert and me) also know that having the actual trust document is essential to ensuring that the
insurance proceeds are actually paid to the trust. The reason why insurers will not make payment
pursuant to a missing trust document is that the insured had the right and ability to make changes to
the trust document, including the beneficiaries thereunder until the day he died. You commented that
Mr. Spallina said it is Heritage's policy not to make payments to an estate in situations where a trust is
lost. Is that your experience with insurance companies? Perhaps Heritage's position is that it will pay the
proceeds to the court (not the estate) and the judge determines how the proceeds are distributed. My
friends in the business tell me that this is precisely what insurance companies do, albeit through the
probate court. That is also why Mr. Spallina included that clause I mentioned in Dad's will, so any such
proceeds flow through to Dad's pour over trust as a backup. Most wills include such a clause even
though many people employ a trust. Trusts do get lost or are revoked. Beneficiary designations fail for a
variety of reasons.

Your comments regarding the many times Dad dealt with the Heritage policy in recent years interests
me. In 2012 Dad did redo his estate plan with Mr. Spallina. In the last couple of years Dad and you (and
perhaps Robert) dealt with reinstating the Heritage policy and considerfd a life payment buyout. In all
those occasions, Dad could have changed the beneficiaries, but you state he did not. I understand, but
fail to see the relevance, based on the above analysis. But because you   ~re in the business and counsel
your clients to use trusts, why did you not request a copy of the 1995 trust from Dad during those
events? Why didn't Mr. Spallina require that Dad give him a copy during the 2012 estate planning
overhaul, and insist on having a copy? Mr. Spallina told us that he and Dad met often and discussed
Dad's financial affairs. Mr. Spallina knew and knows that having the actual trust document was essential,
and I am find it hard to believe he did not insist on including a copy with Dad's 2012 estate planning
documents. If I were Dad's estates lawyer and Dad did not provide me a requested copy, I would have
copies of letters requesting the trust document, at the very least to protect myself against any claims.
And why did Dad not make sure that you all had copies?

I also find it curious that no one has come forth to state the steps that were taken to locate the 1995
trust. Who took the steps, where did they look, and who did they speak with. I was not permitted to go
into Dad's house after he died, so who took the contents of Dad's safe? Who looked at the contents of
Dad's safe deposit box?-

You start by stating that Dad did not have 10 Grandchildren in 1995, so it was not his then desire to
name them as beneficiaries. But absent the actual trust document, it is possible he named his then living
grandchildren. BUT, the 1995 trust document cannot be located, so we will never know.

My fraudulent conveyance analysis is based on the above comments. A creditor would argue that the
named beneficiary was the 1995 trust. It was lost. In those cases, insurers pay death benefits to the
probate court. The proceeds thus become part of the estate even if the judge decides that the proceeds
go through the pour over trust . You are in the insurance business Ted. I am surprised you do not know
this . Thus I remain concerned that if Heritage agrees to pay the procee9s in trust pursuant to some form
of settlement and release (which is your plan to avoid creditors issues) that a creditors lawyer will seek
                                                                          I
to reach those proceeds on the fraudulent conveyance theory. Obviously, you and Robert are trying
awfully hard to get Heritage to do this for the very reason of avoiding deditors' claims. More facts to
help a creditor's lawyer reach the proceeds.

So I would suggest my economic analysis is correct when you consider t~e law and not just Dad's
desires. Again, the law requires an actual trust document, not the concept of a trust. It is required
because the trust document can be changed and is the best and only eJidence of where the proceeds
should go. Unfortunately, Dad intent or desires likely are not relevant. i e knew this, which again is why I
am shocked that Dad did not give copies to each of you.

Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor




                                                                                                          ....
                                                                                                                     ···
                                                                                                                 ·-11~. , ,.:.·.:·,
                                                                                                                             .      ·.         '



                                                                                                                                                   ,

                                                                                                                  1
                                                                                                                                          .
                                                                                                                                                   .



                                                                                                                          . ;·--·.":'.~;··--
From: Robert Spallina [mailto:rspallina@tescherspallina.com]
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 8:41 PM
To: Pam Simon

Cc: Eliot Bernstein; Ted Bernstein; Lisa Sue Friedstein; Jill lantoni; Jill M. lantoni; Christine P.   Yates~

Director@ Tripp Scott

Subject: Re: Heritage Policy

The law does not REQUIRE a trust to pay proceeds. The terms of lost wills and trusts are routinely
proved up through parole evidence. The lawyer I spoke with at Heritage told me that this happens once
every ten days and the estate is rarely if ever the beneficiary of the proceeds on a lost trust instrument.
I have NEVER heard of proceeds being paid to the probate court.

Your father changed himself to the owner of the policy because he wanted to have the RIGHT to change
beneficiaries despite the fact that it causes inclusion of the proceeds in his estate for estate tax
purposes. Very near to his death he requested beneficiary change forms but never actually changed the
beneficiaries. I will give you one guess who he thought of including and it was none of his grandchildren.
I counseled him not to do this and the form was never executed.

As for your father's intent, that is the most important thing and the court will always look to carry that
out. The fact that he changed his dispositive documents to include only his grandchildren lends
credibility to the fact that he intended that the insurance proceeds would go to his five children. He
knew that the trust provided for his children some of whom he knew needed the money. Additionally
we had a conference call prior to his death with all of you where he discussed his plans regarding his
estate and your mother's estate with all of you. This should be of no surprise to anyone.

Bottom line is that we do not need to have the trust for the carrier to pay the proceeds. The carrier is
looking for a court order to pay them to a successor trustee who will distribute them among the
beneficiaries.

I do not and have never had a copy of the policy.

Lets stop making this more difficult than it is. Your father told me that the trust provided that the
proceeds were going to his children. Pam saw him execute the trust with the same attorney that
prepared her own trust a copy of which I have and will offer up to fill in the boilerplate provisions. We
have an SS-4 signed by your mother to obtain the EIN. There is not one shred of evidence that the trust
was terminated which is the only circumstance that would require payment of the proceeds to the
estate.


The fact that your father requested change forms prior to death and didn't execute them speaks to the
existence of the trust and that he intended that you all receive an equal share of the proceeds.
I hope that this helps to guide you and unite you in your decision.

Have a nice weekend.

Sent from my iPhone




On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:41 PM, "Pam Simon" <psimon@stpcorp.com> wrote:

Yad - bad news - we don't have copies of the policy - dad probably took it when he emptied his office I
probably the trust too! The carrier seems to be the only one with a copy. As to the other items, we
should do a call cause the premise is off. Have a good weekend.

Pam




From: Ted Bernstein [mailto:tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:22 AM
To: Pam Simon
Cc: Eliot Bernstein; Lisa Sue Friedstein; Jill lantoni; Jill M. lantoni; Robert L. Spallina,   Esq.~   Attorney at
Law@ Tescher & Spallina, P.A.; Christine P.     Yates~   Director@ Tripp Scott; Irina Roach

Subject: Re: Heritage Policy

Eliot - we do have the letter from Heritage that you refer to below. They will pay with an order from the
court which is based on the agreement, among us, to pay the trust. It's not only easy, we already have
the letter from them.

Why don't the 5 of us get on a call in the next day or two? There are a bunch of things to cover other
than this policy, such as the property in the house.

Time suggestions??

Ted
561-988-8984
tbernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com
From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:52 AM
To: Robert L. Spallina, Esq.~ Attorney at Law @ Tescher & Spallina, P.A.r Ted Bernstein; Pamela Beth
Simon; JILL BERNSTEIN IANTONI; Jill M. lantoni; Lisa S. Friedstein; Christine P. Yates~ Director@ Tripp
Scott

Subject: Eliot Representation

I will be seeking independent counsel for myself personally, as Candice and I have chosen to have
Christine represent our children on the Heritage matter and perhaps other matters to avoid any
conflicts. In the interim, please copy me and Christine on all corresponbences involving the estates of
Simon and Shirley until further notice of who my personal attorney will be. Eliot




From: Eliot Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:05 AM
To: 'Ted Bernstein'; 'psimon@stpcorp.com'
Cc: 'lisa@friedsteins.com'; 'jilliantoni@gmail.com'; 'iantoni_jill@ne.bah lcom'; Christine P. Yates~
Director@ Tripp Scott {CTY@trippscott.com); Ibis          Hernandez~ Legal AJsistant@ Tripp Scott
{idr@trippscott.com); Irina Roach {ixc@TrippScott.com)

Subject: RE: Heritage Policy

Christine would have to be included and what time, etc? Has anyone received a copy of the policy or
have the insurance carriers phone number and person to contact. I will Inot be ready to start any
process without all the relevant documentation for review. Has anyone, in the search for the 1995 trust,
contacted Hopkins, Foley & Lardner, Henry "Hank" Devos Lawrie Jr. or             ~roskauer Rose for their last
copies retained? Thanks      ~   eb




From: Eliot Bernstein [mai lto:iviewit@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:49 PM
To: 'Pam Simon'; 'Ted Bernstein'
Cc: 'Lisa Sue Friedstein'; 'Jill lantoni'; 'Jill M. lantoni'; 'Robert L. Spallina,   Esq.~   Attorney at Law @
Tescher & Spallina, P.A.'; 'Christine P.   Yates~   Director@ Tripp Scott'; 'Irina Roach'

Subject: RE: Heritage Policy
Ted, can you send over the Heritage letter(s), thanks.




From: Ted Bernstein [mailto:tbernstein@Jifeinsuranceconcepts.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:33 AM
To: 'Eliot Ivan Bernstein'; Robert L. Spallina,    Esq.~   Attorney at Law@ Tescher & Spallina, P.A.; Pamela
Beth Simon; JILL BERNSTEIN !ANTONI; Jill M. lantoni; Lisa S. Friedstein; Christine P.    Yates~   Director@
Tripp Scott

Subject: RE: Eliot Representation

Robert,

Please move forward as we discussed in the last group phone call in which we decided to have Heritage
pay your trust account or a trust that you would act as Trustee. Heritage has stated that they will pay
based on a court order showing that there is consensus among the 1995 Trust beneficiaries. Let's get
this done.

Ted




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 10:40 AM
To: 'Ted Bernstein'; Robert Spallina; 'Pamela Beth Simon'; 'JILL BERNSTEIN !ANTONI'; 'Jill M. lantoni';
'Lisa S. Friedstein'; 'Christine P.   Yates~   Director@ Tripp Scott'

Subject: RE: Eliot Representation

Please notify me of any probate court hearings so that I may attend and any actions by the carrier, as I
have not consented to anything at this point or at the last group meeting I attended. Eliot
From: Robert Spallina [mailto:rspallina@tescherspallina.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:10 PM
To: Eliot Ivan Bernstein

Subject: RE: Eliot Representation

Eliot - Please find representation ASAP. You are a hindrance and delay to this whole process. Your
mother's and father's wishes are being frivolously challenged by you for no reason and you agreed with
your father during his lifetime to go along with his wishes. You are alienating your siblings in the
process. You really should be ashamed of yourself.




From: Robert Spallina [mailto:rspallina@tescherspallina.com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Eliot Ivan Bernstein; candyb@rockitcargo.com
Cc: Donald Tescher

Subject: RE: Eliot Representation

Eliot -We want to propose something and hope you and Candice are amenable. Don and I would like to
meet with the two of you and give you the lay of the land as we see it. Don has done this for forty years
and there truly is no one out there that knows this stuff better than him. Please understand that we are
fair as it gets and want the best for EVERYONE. There are some issues as it relates to the house that
you're living in, the insurance and mom's and dad's estates that we think we should discuss so that you
can get comfortable with things and understand the interrelations. I can tell you that hiring lawyers and
spending your children's money or your own will not benefit you or your children and will only cause
frustration and grief for everyone. Again, Don and I are about as nice a guys as you will find in this area
of practice and I think you owe it to your parents to come in and find out for yourselves who we are,
what we're all about, and what needs to be done to get things distributed and let everyone go about
their way. You can always go out and hire a lawyer but our doors are open and we hope that you take
the opportunity to pass through them and meet us. Clean slate Eliot. I promise you we are here for you
and your family as much as any of your siblings. Please advise.

Respectfully,
Robert

Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.
From: Robert Spallina [mailto:rspallina@tescherspallina.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:45 AM
To: Eliot Ivan Bernstein; candyb@rockitcargo.com
Cc: Donald Tescher

Subject: RE: Eliot Representation

Eliot - We wanted to follow-up with you on the below email to see if you have given any consideration
to our proposal to meet. We kindly ask for you to reply either way. Thank you




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:00 PM
To: 'Robert Spallina'; 'candyb@rockitcargo.com'
Cc: 'Donald Tescher'

Subject: RE: Eliot Representation

We should have personal counsel by next week or the week after secured. Eliot
EXHIBIT 7 - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
                        (SAMR")
               SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE

        This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release is made and entered into this ___ day of

-----~            2012, at Chicago, Illinois by and between each of the following defined entities and

individuals.

                                         PARTIES DEFINED

        "TED", as defined herein, refers to and means Ted S. Bernstein an individual

residing in Boca Raton, Florida, his heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "PAM", as defined herein, refers to and means Pamela B. Simon an individual

residing in Chicago, Illinois, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "ELIOT" as defined herein, refers to and means Eliot I. Bernstein, an individual

residing in Boca Raton, Florida, his heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "llLL" as defined herein, refers to and means Jill M. Iantoni, an individual

residing in Highland Park, Illinois, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "LISA" as defined herein, refers to and means Lisa S. Friedstein residing in Highland

Park, Illinois, an individual, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "ALLY" as defined herein, refers to and means Alexandra L. Bernstein residing in

White Plains, New York, an individual, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.

        "ERIC" as defined herein, refers to and means Eric D. Bernstein residing in Boca

Raton, Florida, an individual, his heirs, successors and/or assigns.


        "MICHAEL" as defined herein, refers to and means Michael A Bernstein residing

in Boca Raton, Florida, an individual, his heirs, successors and/or assigns.
       "MOLLY" as defined herein, refers to and means Molly N. Simon residing in

Chicago Illinois, an individual, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.


       "THE ELIOT CHILDREN" as defined herein, refers to and means Joshua, Jacob

and Daniel Bernstein residing in Boca Raton, Florida, all individual(s), their heirs,

successors and/or assigns.


        "THE TILL CIIlLD" as defined herein, refers to and means Julia Iantoni residing

in Highland Park, Illinois, an individual, her heirs, successors and/or assigns.


       "THE LISA CIIlLDREN' as defined herein, refers to and means M ax and Carley

Friedstein residing in Highland Park, Illinois, an individual(s), both heirs, successors

and/or assigns.



                                           DEFINITIONS

        "Agreement", as defined herein, refers to and means, this Settlement Agreement and

Mutual Release.

        "Party" or "Parties", shall refer to and mean an individual defined above whom

shall sign on and be bound by this Settlement Agreement, and Parties shall refer to the

individuals collectively.

        "Trust"       as defined herein refers to and means the Simon L. Bernstein
                  '

Irrevocable Insurance Trust dtd 6/21/95.

                                            RECITAL'S

        WHEREAS, the Parties are all of the children and grandchildren of the marriage of Simon L.

Bernstein and Shirley Bernstein;

        \VHEREAS, Simon L. Bernstein established the Trust in 1995 for the benefit of his wife,
Shirley Bernstein, and their children, the Parties;

         WHEREAS, Shirley Bernstein predeceased Simon L. Bernstein, and Simon L. Bernstein

passed away on September 13, 2012;

         WHEREAS, after a diligent search by the Parties, an executed copy of the Trust can not be

found;

         WHEREAS, the Trust is the beneficiary of life insurance policy number 1009208 issued by

Heritage Union Life Insurance Company (the "Insurer") on the life of Simon L. Bernstein (the

"Policy");

         WHEREAS, the Parties desire to achieve the intent of Simon L. Bernstein on or about the

date of the Trust and resolve any and all disputes and controversies that have arisen or may arise

regarding the distribution of the death benefit proceeds of the Policy.

                                            WITNESS ETH

NO\V THEREFORE, in consideration of the following covenants, promises and obligations, as well

as other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged; it is

agreed by and between the Parties as follows:

                                             COVENANTS


    1. TED is appointed and hereby accepts the appointment to act as Trustee of the Trust.

    2. That TED, as Trustee, shall open a bank account in the name of the Trust (the "Trust
       Account").

    3. That TED, as Trustee shall deposit or direct the Insurer to deposit the death benefit proceeds
       of the Policy into the Trust Account.

    4. That TED, as Trustee, shall pay expenses of the Trust including the cost of filing a tax return
       from the proceeds in the Trust Account.

    5. That TED, as Trustee, shall distribute all remaining proceeds in the Trust Account equally (in
       20% shares) to each of TED, PAM, ELIOT, JILL and LISA




                                                                                                     t{f
6. That TED, as Trustee, upon completing the distribution in iJ5 above and the filing of the tax
   return contemplated in iJ4 above shall close the Trust Account.

7. Upon receipt of the Settlement Agreement executed by all Parties and upon fulfillment of
   all of the covenants and obligations contained in iJl through iJ6 above, TED, PAM,
   ELIOT, TILL, AND LISA, ALLY, ERIC, MICHAEL, MOLLY, THE ELIOT
   CHILDREN, THE TILL CHILD AND THE LISA CHILDREN and each of them in their
   own individual capacity, shall respectively acquit, release, and forever discharge TED,
   both individually and as Trustee, and each and every other Party from any and all claims,
   demands, liabilities, obligations, causes and causes of action of whatever kind or nature,
   known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected by each of them, which each of them now
   owns or holds or at any time heretofore owned or held as against each other arising out of
   any matter related to or associated with the Policy and/or the Trust, and without limiting the
   generality of the foregoing, all claims, demands, liabilities, obligations, causes and causes of
   action arising out of or in any way connected with: a) the receipt of the death benefit
   proceeds of the Policy by the Trust; b) arising out of or in any way connected to the operation
   and management of the Trust, or the actual terms of the Trust in the event it should be located
   subsequent to the date of this Agreement regardless as to whether all of the covenants and
   obligations of this Agreement have been executed to completion.

8. All demands and notices given hereunder shall be sent by mail addressed to the respective
   Parties with a copy to David B. Simon, The Simon Law Firm, 303 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 210,
   Chicago, IL 60601-5210.

9. The Parties hereby represent to one another that they have full power and authority to enter
   into this Settlement Agreement and carry out their obligations hereunder. All Parties further
   represent that this Settlement Agreement has been duly executed and delivered.

10. This Settlement Agreement embodies the entire understanding of the Parties. All prior
    correspondence, conversations, memoranda and agreements have been merged into and
    replaced by this Settlement Agreement.

11. If a Party breaches this Settlement Agreement, the breaching Party shall reimburse the non-
    breaching Parties for a11 reasonable costs, attorney's fees, and expenses incurred by them in
    enforcing the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

12. This Settlement Agreement shall (i) be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
    of the State of Illinois and all claims or controversies arising out of this Settlement
    Agreement shall be brought within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of Illinois; (ii) inure
    to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties themselves, as well as their respective heirs,
    executors, predecessors, successors and assigns.

13. All Parties have been represented by counsel, or have had the opportunity to seek the advice
    of counsel, and if they have sought counsel then such counsel has reviewed this Settlement
    Agreement and recommended that their respective clients enter into it.

 14. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which, when
     taken together, shall constitute an original. Facsimile signatures of the Parties shall as valid
     and binding as original signatures.
15. Should any provision contained in this Agreement be deemed illegal or unenforceable as a
    matter of law, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain binding and continue in full
    force and effect.

16. The signatories state that they have read and understand this Settlement Agreement and that
    they intend to be legally bound by the same.




                                                                                           ~1
                                                                                            1...
Agreed and accepted this date and year first written above.




TED S. BERNSTEIN                            ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN

Witness:- - - - - - - - -                   Witness:
                                                    ----------
Address:                                    Address:


PAMELA B. SIMON                             JILL M. !ANTONI

Witness:- - - - - - - - -                   Witness:- - - - - - - - -
Address:                                    Address:


LISA S. FRIEDSTEIN                          ALEXANDRA L. BERNSTEIN

Witness:
        ---------
Address:

ERIC BERNSTEIN                              MICHAEL BERNSTEIN

Witness:                                    Witness:
Address:
        ---------                           Address:
                                                    ---------

MOLLY N. SIMON                              THE ELIOT CHILDREN

                                            Eliot I. Bernstein, Parent

                                            Candace Bernstein, Parent
Witness: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Addi·ess:                                   Address:

THE JILL CHILD                              THE LISA CHILDREN

Jill Iantoni, Parent                        Lisa Frendstein, Parent

Guy Iantoni, Parent                         Jeffrey Friedstein, Parent

Address:                                    Address:
EXHIBIT 8 - ELIOT LETTERS REGARDING COUNSEL FOR SAMR
EXHIBIT 9-SPALLINA LETTERS REGARDING HERITAGE POLICY
                    BENEFICIARIES
EXHIBIT 10 - TRIPP SCOTT LETTERS TO SPALLINA FOR
                 DOCUMENTS, ETC.
Eliot Ivan Bernstein

Subject:                           FW: Est. of Shirley Bernstein and Estate Simon Leon Bernstein: Revised Retainer
                                   Agreement




From: Christine Yates [ mailto:cty@TrippScott.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:15 PM
To: 'Eliot Ivan Bernstein'
Cc: Jamie Garber
Subject: RE: Est. of Shirley Bernstein and Estate Simon Leon Bernstein: Revised Retainer Agreement

Eliot, thank you. I will be contacting the Tesher firm as we discussed.




110 SE Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-525-7500




Christine T. Yates
Director

Direct: (954) 760-4916
  Fax.· (954) 761-8475
    ctv@trippscott.com
From: Christine Yates [ mailto:cty@TriopScott.com)
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:33 AM
To:--
Sub~rnstein estate matter

-      ·thanks for checking in. Surprisingly, when my assistant called Mr. Spallina refused to set up a
      e
COri'T' rence call indicating he did not now who Mr. Bernstein was . Therefore, I have been trying to contact
him without a call. So far, no fuck with reaching him. At this we are preparing a fetter informing him of our
represenation.




110 SE Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-525-7500




Chl"istine T. Yates
Director

Direct: (954) 760-4916
  Fax: (954) 761-8475
    ctv@trippscott.com
Christine P. Yates
Direct Dial: 954.760.4916
Email: ctv@triopscott.com

                                                     November 9, 2012

Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail
Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
Tescher & Spallina, P.A.
4855 Technology Way
Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33431

           Re:        Estates of Shirley Bernstein and Simon Leon Bernstein

Dear Mr. Spallina:

       Our firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein, individually, as natural guardians of Joshua, Jacob,
and Daniel Bernstein, and as Trustees of any trusts created for Joshua, Jacob and Daniel Bernstein by
Simon and/or Shirley Bernstein. In order to assist us in this matter, please provide us with copies of the
following:

           1.         Copies of all estate planning documents including all Wills and Trusts for Shirley
                      Bernstein and Simon Leon Bernstein that our client was a beneficiary, whether qualified or
                      contingent;
           2.         Copies of all estate planning documents including all Wills and Trusts that our client's
                      children, Joshua, Jacob and/or Daniel, are named as beneficiary, whether qualified or
                      contingent;
           3.         Copies of all documents executed in May and June 2012 regarding the Last Will and
                      Testament of Shirley Bernstein;
           4.         Estate Accounting for Shirley Bernstein;
           5.         Estate Accounting for Simon Bernstein;
           6.         Trust Accountings for any Trusts that our client, his spouse, or his children are a
                      beneficiary, whether qualified or contingent;
           7.         Copies of any claims filed in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein and Simon Bernstein;
           8.         Copy of the Inventory filed in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein;
           9.         Copy of the Inventory filed in the Estate of Simon Bernstein, or if none, please provide the
                      approximate date you expect the Inventory will be prepared and filed with the Probate
                      Court;
           10.        Allocation of the tangible personal property of Shirley and Simon Bernstein. Specifically,
                      is the jewelry being divided among the ten grandchildren?;
           11.        Appraisals of tangible personal property, specifically the jewelry, artwork and collectibles;
           12.        All documents relating to the life insurance policies owned by Shirley and/or Simon,
                      insuring Shirley and/or Simon's life, or for the benefit of Shirley and/or Simon Bernstein;
           13.        Please provide documentation concerning the allocation and division of all companies
                      owned by Simon and/or Shirley at the time of their deaths and copies of any partnership,
659S17v2 995508.0001         110 Southeast Sixth Street, Fifteenth Floor• Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
                                      Post Office Box 14245 ·Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
                                   Tel 954.525.7500 ·Fax 954.761.8475 • www.trippscott.com

                                               Fort Lauderdale • Tallahassee
Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
November 9, 2012
Page2 of2




                 operating, or stockholders agreements;
        14.      Please provide a status of the ongoing litigation involving Stanford;
        15.      Please provide a status of the Iliewit company stock. Were the issues with Gerald Lewin
                 resolved?;
        16.      Please provide a status of the funding of Telenet Company and Candice's employment
                 with Telenet; and
        17.      Please provide any information you have with regards to the college funds created by
                 Simon or Shirley Bernstein for the benefit of Joshua, Jacob and/or Daniel.

       Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to
contact my office.




                                                            (?~?-~
                                                                ~
                                                            Christine P. Yates
                                                            For the Firm


CPY/jcj
cc:   Eliot Bernstein
      Marc Garber




659917v2 995508.0001
                                                     ~ . ·:'

ChriStine P. Yates
                                               lRIPPt~~corr
                                               EXPERIENCE~~         CAN TRUST
Direct Dial: 954 760.4916
Email: ctv@tnppscott.com

                                                                    November 29, ;2012

Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail
Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
Tescher & Spallina, P.A.
4855 Technology Way - Suite 720
Boca Raton, F'L 33431

           Re:        Estates of Shirley Bernstein and Simon Leon Bernstein

Dear Mr. Spallina:

        We wru1ted to take this opportunity to follow up with you regarding my November 9,
2012 correspondence. As you are aware, my firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein,
individually, as natural guardians of Joshua, Jacob, and Daniel Bernstein, and as Trustees of any
trusts created for Joshua, Jacob and Daniel Bernstein by Simon and/or Shirley Bernstein. We
would appreciate receiving copies of the following information and documents no later than
December 4, 2012, in order to assist us in this matter:

           I.         Copies of all estate planning documents including all Wills and Trusts for ShiJ:ley
                      Bernstein and Simon Leon Bernstein that our client was a beneficiary, whether
                      qualified or contingent;
           2.         Copies of all estate planning documents including aill Wills and Trusts that our
                      clienfs children, Joshua, Jacob and/or Daniel, are named as beneficiary, whether
                      qualified or contingent;
           3.         Copies of all documents executed in May and June 2012 regarding the Last Will
                      and Testament of Shirley Bernstein;
           4.         Estate Accounting for Shirley Bernstein;
           5.         Estate Accounting for Simon Bernstein;
           6.         Trust Accountings for any Trusts that our client, his spouse, or his children are a
                      beneficiary, whether qualified or contingent;
           7.         Copies of any claims filed in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein and Simon Bemstejn;
           8.         Copy of the Inventory filed in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein;
           9.         Copy of the Inventory filed in the Estate of Simon Bernstein, or if none, please
                      provide the approximate date you expect the Inventory will be prepared and filed
                      with the Probate Court;
           10.        Allocation of the tangible personal property of Shirley and Simon Bernstein.
                      Specifically, is the jewelry being divided among the ten grandchildren?~
           11.        Appraisals of tangible personal property, specifically the jewelry, artwork and
                      collectibles;
           12.        All documents relating to the life insurance policies owned by Shirley al1d/or
                      Simon, insuring Shirley and/or Simon's life, or for the benefit of Shirley and/or
                      Simon Bernstein;
861738v1 995508.0001        110 Southeast Sixth Street Fifteenth Floor· Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
                                     Post Office Box 14245 ·Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3.3302
                                   Te! 954.525.7500 ·Fax 954.761.8475 • www.trippscott.com

                                              Fort Lauderdale • Tallahassee
Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
November 29, 2012
Page 2 of2




        13.      Please provide documentation concerning the allocation and division of all
                 companies owned by Simon and/or Shirley at tl1e time of their deaths and copies
                 of any partnership, operating, or stockholders agreements;

        14.      Please provide a status of the ongoing litigation involving Stanford;
        15.      Please provide a status of the Iliewit company stock. Were the issues with Gerald
                 Lewin resolved?;
        16.      Please provide a status of the funding of Telenet Company and Candice's
                 employment with Telenet; and
        17.      Please provide any information you have with regards to the coUege funds created
                 by Simon or Shirley Bernstein for the benefit of Joshua, Jacob and/or Daniel.

        Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel
free to contact my office.

                                                             Very truly yours,


                                                         ~tr Christine P. Yates
                                                             For the Firm


CPY/cak
cc:     Eliot Bernstein
        Marc Garber




661738v1 995508.0001
From: Christine Yates [mailto:cty@TrippScott.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:05 PM
To: 'iviewit@gmail.com'; 'Marc.Garber@flastergreenberg.com'
Cc: Cindy Kronen
Subject: Bernstein - E/0 Shirley Bernstein & E/0 Leon Bernstein: Status

Eliot and Marc, I confirmed with Spallina's office that they have received my request and I have a call set
up with Spallina for next Tuesday at 2:30. Thanks .




110 SE Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-525-7500




Christine T. Yates
Director

Direct: (954) 760-4916
  Fax: (954) 761-8475
    ctv@trippscott.com
From: Christine Yates [mailto:cty@TrippScott.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 12:02 PM
To: 'Eliot Ivan Bernstein'; 'marc.garber@flastergreenberg.com'
Cc: Cindy Kronen
Subject: FW: Bernstein - E/0 Shirley Bernstein & E/0 Leon Bernstein:

Eliot and Marc, Robert Spinella's assistant cancelled the call today and would not reschedule. I tried to
call and they will not take my call. I believe we are going to have to proceed with litigation to get any
information with them. Please let me know your thoughts and I would like to set up a call with you to go
over how we proceed. Thanks.




110 SE Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-525-7500




Christine T. Yates
Director

Direct: (954) 760-4916
  Fax. (954) 761 -8475
    ctv@trippscott.com




From: Cindy Kronen
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:56 AM
To: Christine Yates
Subject: Bernstein - E/0 Shirley Bernstein & E/0 Leon Bernstein:

Robert Spinella's assisant called to cancel the conference call I scheduled this afternoon. She did not
want to reschedule at this time .




110 SE Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-525-7500




Cindy Kronen
Paralegal

Direct: (954) 627-3810




                                                                                                            {f
Christine P. Yates
Direct Dial· 954. 760.4916
Email: cty@tnppscott.com


                                                                        December 21, 2012

Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail
Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
Tescher & Spallina, P.A.
4855 Technology Way - Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33431

           Re:         Estates of Shirley Bernstein and Simon Leon Bernstein

Dear Mr. Spallina:

        As you are aware, my firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein. We would appreciate receiving
copies of the following information and documents in this matter:

           1.          A copy of Simon Bernstein's Trust and accounting;
           2.          A copy of Shirley Bernstein's Trust and accounting;
           3.          A copy of Bernstein Family LLC's Trust;
           4.          A copy of Bernstein Holdings and Family Corporation;
           5.          Objections to claims filed in Estate of Simon Bernstein;
           6.          Exempt Property Petition filed;
           7.          Personal Property Inventory for Estate of Simon and Shirley Bernstein;
           8.          Please provide a status of the ongoing litigation involving the Estate Substitution in
                       Stanford - Case status and attorney handling;
           9.          Limited Power of Appointment executed by Simon;
           10.         Inventory for Shirley Bernstein;
           11.         Inventory for Simon Bernstein; and
           12.         LIC Holdings corporate Documents;
           13.         Mortgage documents relating to Eliot's home, and documents pertaining to first mortgage;
           14.         Accounting of each child's Trust.

       Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to
contact my office.




                                                                        PL~~
                                                                           ~
                                                                          Christine P. Yates
                                                                          For the Firm

CPY/iah
cc:   Eliot Bernstein
      Marc Garber
665356v1 995508.0001          110 Southeast Sixth Street, Fifteenth Floor· Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
                                        Post Office Box 14245 ·Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
                                     Tel 954.525.7500 ·Fax 954.761.8475 • www.trippscott.com

                                                 Fort Lauderdale • Tallahassee
                                             LAW         OFFICES


                                TESCHER &: SPALLINA, P.A.
                                          BOCA VILLAGE CORPORATE C ENTER   l
                                          4855   TECHNOLOGY WAY, SUITE 720
                                             BOCA RATON,   FLORIDA 33431
ATTORNEYS
                                                                                                         SUPPORT STAFF
DONALD  R. TESCHER                                TEL:561-997-7008                                        DIANE DUSTIN
ROBERT L. SPALLINA                               FAX: 561-997-7308                                     K IMBERLY MORAN
LA.UREN A. GALVANI                            TOLL FREE: 888-997-7008                                   SUANN TESCHER
                                              WWW. TESCHERSPALLINA.COM


                                                 January 11, 2013

      VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
      Christine P. Yates, Esq.
      Tripp Scott
      110 Southeast Sixth Street
      Fifteenth Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

              Re: Estates of Shirley Bernstein and Simon L. Bernstein

      Dear Ms. Yates:

            In response to the items in your letter dated December 21, 2013, we are enclosing the following
      documents and responses:

              1.     Simon L. Bernstein Amended and Restated Trust Agreement dated July 25, 2012. We
                     do not have an accounting for the trust at this time.
              2.     Shirley Bernstein Trust Agreement dated May 20, 2008 together with a copy of the First
                     Amendment to Shirley Bernstein Trust Agreement dated November 18, 2008. We do not
                     have an accounting for the trust at this time, however, it's primary assets are the two
                     homes.
              3.     Operating Agreement for Bernstein Family Realty, LLC dated June 30, 2008.
              4.     Agreement of Limited Partnership of Bernstein Family Investments, LLLP dated May
                     20, 2008 and the Operating Agreement ofBemstein Holdings, LLC dated May 20, 2008.
              5.     We have not yet filed any objections to any claims filed in the Estate, but will be able
                     to provide copies when we get to this point in the probate procedure.
              6.     There is no Exempt Property Petition filed in the Estate.
              7.     We are not in possession of personal property inventories for either Simon or Shirley.
              8.     As discussed previously.
              9.     The Limited Power of Appointment was exercised under Si's Will, a copy of which you
                     already have.
              10.    A copy of the Inventory for the Estate of Shirley Bernstein.
              11.    We will provide you with a copy of the Inventory for the Estate of Simon Bernstein once
                     it is complete.
              12.    We are not in possession of any documents related to LIC Holdings.
              13.    A copy of the recorded Second Mortgage for Eliot Bernstein's home, together with the
                     Promissory Note in the amount of $365,000.00. Please note that Walter Sahm holds a
Christine P. Yates, Esq.
January 11, 2013
Page 2

               first position mortgage on the property, a copy of which we do not have, and is anxious
               about getting paid as a result of Si's death. Please call me to discuss this.
        14.    The children's trusts were never funded, other than the one (l %) percent interest in the
               general partner of the limited partnership for Eliot, Lisa and Jill.

       If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contac




Enclosures




                                          LAW     OFFICES

                             TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.
Christine P. Yates
Direct Dial: 954.760.4916
EmaiL ctv@trippscott.com



                                                                       February 13, 2013

Via E-Mail
Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
T escher & Spallina, P.A.
4855 Technology Way - Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 3343 l

          Re:         Estates of Shirley Bernstein and Simon Leon Bernstein

Dear Robert:

        As you are aware, my firm represents Joshua, Jacob and Daniel Bernstein as beneficiaries of the
Estates or Shirley and Simon Bernstein and the trusts created for their benefit by Shirley and/or Simon
Bernstein, including the Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein, Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Jacob
Noah Archie Bernstein and Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Daniel Elijsha Abe Ottomo Bernstein created by Simon
Bernstein in 2006. We would appreciate receiving copies of the following information and documents in
this matter within ten (10) days of your receipt of this letter:

           1.         A copy of the Limited Power of Appointment executed by Simon;
           2.         The minutes and records of Bernstein Family Realty, LLC;
           3.         All financial records for Simon Bernstein, including an accounting of the phantom income
                      from LIC Holdings;
          4.          An accounting and a copy of all Trusts created by Simon Bernstein of which my clients are
                      a beneficiary; and
          5.          An accounting and a copy of all Trusts created by Shirley Bernstein of which my clients
                      are a beneficiary.

        We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter as we attempt to piece together all of the
aspects of these estates and trusts. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office.

                                                                        Veryi,        OUI>,




                                                                            ·~
                                                                        For the Finn
                                                                                           '11·P-M
CPY/jcj
cc:    Eliot Bernstein
       Marc Garber
670569v1 995508.0001          110 Southeast Sixth Street, Fifteenth Floor• Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
                                       Post Office Box 14245 ·Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
                                    Tel 954.525.7500 • Fax 954.761.8475 • www.trippscott.com

                                                Fort Lauderdale • Tallahassee
EXHIBIT 11 - TRIPP SCOTT CONFLICT LETTER
CHRISTINE? YATES
Direct Dial: 954 760 4916
Email: cty@ttippscott com



                                                            February 13, 2013

VIA EMAIL
Mr. and Mrs. Eliot Bernstein
2753 NW 34th St.
Boca Raton, FL 33434


          Re:         Revised Representation and Conflict Waiver

Dear Eliot and Candice:

         This letter shall confirm that Tripp Scott, P.A. (hereinafter the "Finn") represents your three
children, Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein, Jacob Noah Archie Bernstein and Daniel Elijsha Abe Ottomo
Bernstein (hereinafter coHectiveiy referred to as the "Children") as beneficiaries of the Estate of Shirley
Bemstein, the Estate of Simon Bernstein and as beneficiaries of any irrevocable trusts created by Shirley
and/or Simon Bernstein, including the Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein, Irrevocable
Trust f/b/o Jacob Noah Archie Bernstein and Irrevocable Trust flb/o Daniel Elijsha Abe Ottomo Bernstein
created by Simon Bernstein in 2006. Enclosed is a revised Retainer Agreement clarifying the scope of
this Firm's representation of your children.

        The Firm no longer represents yuu in any individual capacity and we have advised you to
seek other counsel immediately so your legal rights and interests may be preserved.

           In addition, we wish to advise you of this Finn's potential conflict of interest in its prior
representation of you and your children. Accordingly,. we must obtain your acknowledgement and waiver
of this conflict due to the Firm's prior representation of you and consent to our continued representation
of your children.

        In light of the fact that loyalty is an essential element in a lawyer's relation to a client, Florida's
Rules of Professional Conduct (the "Rules") prohibit a lawyer from representing a client if such
representation will be "directly adverse" to the interests of another client unless ( 1) the lawyer reasonably
believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation.

          The Firm does not believe that the representation of the both of you and your children in
connection with your interests as beneficiaries under the Estate of Shirley Bernstein and the Estate of
Simon Bernstein and as beneficiaries of any trusts created by Shirley and/or Simon Bernstein adversely
affected the Finn's responsibilities to and relationship with you or your children. However, we have
mutually agreed that we will discontinue representation of th.e two of you, and will limit our Firm's
representation solely to that of the Children. We have advised you to obtain independent legal counsel,
other than the Firm, regarding the representation of your interests, including but not limited to, any claims
in connection with Estate of Shirley Bernstein, the Estate of Simon Bernstein and as beneficiaries of the
irrevocable trusts created by Simon Bernstein.
                      11 O Southeast Sixth Street, Fifteenth Floor• Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
668859v5 995sos.0001            Post Office Box 14245 ·Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
                               Tel 954.525.7500 • Fax 954.761.8475 • www.trippscott.com

                                         Fort Lauderdale • Tallahassee
Engagement Letter
February 13, 2013
Page 2of3



        To document your acknowledgement to our discontinued representation of you and the revised
scope of our representation of the Children in connection with their interests as beneficiaries under the
Estate of Shidey Bernstein, the Estate of Simon Bernstein and as beneficiaries of any trusts created by
Shirley and/or Simon Bernstein, including the Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein,
Irrevocable Trust fi'b/o Jacob Noah Archie Bernstein and Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Daniel Elijsha Abe
Ottomo Bernstein created by Simon Bernstein in 2006, subject to the conditions set forth herein, please
execute this letter on the space provided below.

       We have not been authorized by you to perform any substantive factual or legal research as
to any of your individual claims and we strongly encourage you to retain counsel to do such
research and protect your interests.

       We agree that this letter may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original, but all such separate counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same
instrument, and a legible facsimile copy of this letter and any signatures hereon shall be considered for all
purposes as originals.




                                                        ~/~
                                                          *
                                                          CHRISTINE P. YA TES     1._
                                                          For the Firm            (/
CPY/jcj




668859v5 995508.0001
Engagement Letter
February 13, 2013
Page 3 of3




                       ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND WAIVER OF CONFLICT

The undersigned acknowledge that Christine P. Yates and Tripp Scott, P.A. represent Joshua Bernstein,
Jacob Bernstein and Daniel Bernstein with respect to the matters described above and have discontinued
their representation of Eliot Bernstein and Candice Bernstien. We hereby (I) waive any conflict of
interest that may have existed due to the Attorneys' representation of us and our children as beneficiaries
of the Estate of Shirley Bernstein and the Estate of Simon Bernstein and as beneficiaries of any trusts
created by Shirley and/or Simon Bernstein; (2) agree to seek independent legal counsel to represent our
interests in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein, the Estate of Simon Bernstein and as beneficiaries of the trusts
created by Shirley and/or Simon Bernstein; and (3) acknowledge and consent to the continued
representation by Tripp Scott, P.A. of Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein, Jacob Noah Archie Bernstein and
Daniel Elijsha Abe Ottomo Bernstein as beneficiaries of the Estate of Shirley Bernstein, the Estate of
Simon Bernstein, as beneficiaries of any trusts created by Shirley and!or Simon Bernstein, including the
Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein, Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Jacob Noah Archie
Bernstein and Irrevocable Trnst f/b/o Daniel Elijsha Abe Ottorno Bernstein created by Simon Bernstein in
2006.




      e tein, individually and as
as   ural guardian of Joshua Bernstein,
Jacob Bernstein and Daniel Bernstein




668859v5 995508.0001
                                                                                     TRIPP SCOTT, P.A.
                                                                                110 S.E. 6'H STREET, 15™ FLOOR
                                                                                  FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
                                                                                               (954) 525-7500




          We are pleased that you have asked Tripp Scott, P.A. to provide legal services in connection
          with the above listed matter. The purpose of this agreement is to set forth our mutual
          understanding regarding the basis upon which we have agreed to undertake such
          representation.




          We will provide our legal services on the basis of hourly rates in effect at the time the legal
          services are rendered. Those rates currently range up to $425.00 per hour for attorneys, with
          paralegals billing at a rate of up to $160.00 per hour. Law clerks are billed at the rate of
          $110.00 per hour. My time is currently billed at $350.00 per hour. If other attorneys or
          professionals in the firm work on this matter, their time will be billed on the basis of their hourly
          rate as well. All of the above rates are fqr the current calendar year and are subject to change
          thereafter. Unless otherwise specified, any additional services requested to be provided by our
          firm beyond the scope of the above matter will be billed to you in accordance with our hourly
          rates in effect at the time those services are rendered, and subject to the terms set forth in this ·
          agreement. Please note that telephone calls are billed at a minimum of two-tenths {0.20) of an
          hour no matter how short its duration. Additionally, client understands that our representation
          may involve the discussion of tax and property issues of the client and certain options may be
          discussed, or a plan entertained, that is not implemented. This time is considered billable and
          payment is expected upon service.

          In connection with your estate plannfng, you agree to pay us a retainer in the amount of $~
          You will receive monthly statements and said fees will be credited from your retainer balance.
          You understand that the retainer amount stated in this agreement is in no way a guarantee or
          cap on the amount of legal fees that could be expended and will not be refunded to you in the
          event our representation is tenninated by either you, the client, or the attorney.




          Costs and expenses that are incurred by Tripp Scott, PA on your behalf, including, but not
          limited to, mailing and postage, telecopy charges, long distance telephone costs, photocopying
          charges, etc., will be billed to you with our statement for fees on a monthly basis .

          In addition to the fee retainer, you agree to deposit with us the sum of $ t!fA; to be applied
          towards costs. The cost deposit is also due upon execution of this agreement. Whenever the
          costs deposit falls below $0.00, you may be asked to replenish said deposit so that at all times
          there is a credit balance to apply towards costs expended on your behalf. No other professional
          will be en a ed without our re-a roval.

                                                        1of3




------   -·--
At the conclusion of our legal services, the balance of the cost retainer, if any, will be refunded
to you provided ail fees have been paid. You agree that the remaining cost deposit, if any, may
be applied to the final fee balance.

:' / _;_ ':.:'! ".'->
              t: .      ·: \~< ·!.:_. :·:,:   :, :.-:·. :< ·.' :."'•-._.: .::_,.'.'.' :".~B:tLlllllG ,·_.: ·:;-: .: -·;. -_ -- -:~~"::::· -
                                                                                                                     .                                    . :·{
                                                                                                                                              ..... -~· '··, ·_ <->-: ": :;;. -.: .-.:~ ·-
                                                                                                                                                                         _
We ask that you stay current with our office on a monthly basis. However, if a balance remains
outstanding with our office for over thirty (30) days, Tripp Scott, P.A., shall have the right to
cease work on your file until such time that the balance is paid in full. Additionally, if said fees
are not kept current within the thtrty (30) day period, we reserve the right to request an
additional non-refundable retainer. Tripp Scott, P.A., shall, at its own discretion, have the right
to withdraw from representing you in this matter at any time if:

                    (A) You do not make payments required within thirty (30) days after billing;
                    (B) You have misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts;
                    (C} You fail to follow our advice;
                    (D} A dispute between client and attorney arise which cannot be worked
                        out with a good faith effort and in an amicable way; and
                    (E} Any other reason as deemed appropriate by the attorney.

To protect our fees and costs until they are paid, it is specificafly agreed by you, the client, that
the undersigned attorney shall have and is hereby granted all general, possessory and retaining ·
liens and all equitable special and attorney's charging liens upon the client's documents,
property (both real and personal, regardless of homestead), or money in the client's possession
or money or property in another's possession for the client's benefit for the payment of all sums
due under this agreement, and upon property or fund.s received by you, the cllent, by
settlement, judgment, or otheiwise. Any such liens shall also include liens upon the client's
interest in any estate, trust, guardianship or other asset held in fiduciary capacity or trust,
constructive or otherwise, within the jurisdiction of the court for any balance due, owing and
unpaid. Any such Uens shall relate back to the date of this agreement and shall be superior in
dignity to any other liens subsequent to the date thereof. It is agreed by the client that the
attorney will file a lien and a Notice of Lis Pendens with regard to the client's interest in any real
property (regardless of homestead as you, the client, expressly have waived your homestead
exemption under this agreement) upon which a lien may be claimed.

You agree to pay interest at the rate of 1% per month or 12% per annum on any bill, or portion
thereof, which remains unpaid for more than thirty (30) days after billing. Also, client agrees that
their file will only be released by the attorney upon payment of all fees and costs due and owing
Trioo Scott, P.A.


Please be advised, the trustee is generally entitled to pay attorney's fees and costs from the trust assets,
but in the event that a claim or defense based upon a breach of trust is made against the trustee, we
have the right to seek a pre-hearing order prohibiting the payments. If the order is granted, the trustee
must cease using the trust assets to pay attorney's fees and costs and must make those payments
personally. Following this pre-evide,ntiary hearing, the court will determine the merit of the underlying.
claim or defense of breach of trust at which point the trustee will either be required to refund any ·
payments of costs or fees to the trust, or will be entitled to seek an order pennitting a refund of payments
made personally by them.




                                                                                           2of3
                       d
: This agreement is consistent with our understanding of · e s·
 and fees.
                                                                  e and terms of representation


 Dated:.        ~3_
                                                            BERNSTEIN, as Natural
                                                   · ard1an of Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein,
                                                   J cob Noah Archie Bernstein and Daniel
                                                   Elijsha Abe Ottomo Bernstein




 Dated:                         . -
            _...._CJ-._/_..1_a~l1. .~------       CAN~~STEIN,                        as Natural
                                                   Guardian of Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein,
                                                   Jacob Noah Archie Bernstein and Daniel
                                                   Elijsha Abe Ottomo Bernstein




                   TRIPP SCOTT, P.A.
              110 S. E. 6™ STREET, 15™ FLOOR
               FORT LAlJDEROALE, fl 33301          By:--J'-----!7-.:b-b~~~~.._-77-""~7'--
                       (954) 525-7500
668885v3 995508.0001




                                               3 of 3


                                                                                                    ;t•.
                                                                                                   :.>_.,t'-''


                                                                                                  'elf'
EXHIBIT 12-WAIVERS NOT NOTARIZED




                           : ?'·::: ·.
            '. ........._,hf~~:N
            ..   '    ~   .       ·.-~
                                  .   .
                          . . .·.:iJ%
      rN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
 IN RE: ESTATE OF               File No. 5020l ICP000653XXXXSB
 SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                     Probate Division
 Deceased.                              Division


   W AIYER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
  FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
      DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
                CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

        The undersigned, Simon L. Bernstein, whose address is 7020 Lions Head Lane, Boca Raton, Florida
33496, and who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
        (a)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

        (b)      Waives the filing and service ofa final or other accounting by the personal representative;

         (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
personal representative, and the manner of detennining that compensation;

        {d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
manner of detennining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
objections to the payment of such compensation;

        (e)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

        (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
thereof upon the undersigned;

        (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
undersigned was entitled; and

        (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.                    -T

        Signed on _ _   l-(--'-'"{....:.~~'~/;:;;_:l--
                                                ______, 2012.
      IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
 fN RE: ESTATE OF               File No. 50201 ICP000653XXXXSB
 SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                     Probate Division
 Deceased.                              Division


   WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
  FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
     DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
                       CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

        The undersigned , Eliot Bernstein, whose address is2753 NW 341h Street, Boca Raton, FL 33434, and
who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
        (a)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

        (b)      Waives the filing and service of a final or other accounting by the personal representative;

         (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
personal representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

        (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
manner of determining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
objections to the payment of such compensation;

        (e)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

        (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
thereof upon the undersigned;

        (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
undersigned was entitled; and

        (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

        s;gnedon    ~5_,                                 ,2012.
      !N THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
 IN RE; ESTATE OF               File No. 502011CP000653XXXXSB
 SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                     Probate Division
                                                                                             ;':_   . .. -
 Deceased.                              Division                                            --         -:



   WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
  FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
     DISCHARGE:; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
               CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

        The undersigned, Jill lantoni, whose address is 2101 Magno Iia Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035, and
who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
        (a)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned isawareoftherighttohave a final accounting;

        (b)      Waives the filing and service of a final or other accounting by the personal representative;

         (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
personal representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

        (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
manner of determining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
objections to the payment of such compensation;

        (e)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

        (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
thereof upon the undersigned;

        (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
undersigned was entitled; and

        (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
hearing or waiting period and without further account ing.

        Signedon     (JL,'j?)f,gc /5t_-                  ' 2012.
     IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
 IN RE: EST ATE OF              File No. 5020l 1CP000653X:XXXSB
 SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                     Probate Division
 Deceased.                              Division


   WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITlON
  FOR DISCHARGE; W AIYER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
     DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
               CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

        The undersigned, Lisa S. Friedstein, whose address is 2142 Churchill Lane, Highland Parle, IL 60035,
and who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
        (a)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the rightto have a final accounting;

        (b)      Waives the filing and service of a final or other accounting by the personal representative;

         (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
personal representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

        (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
manner of determining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
or other agents; bas agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
objections to the payment of such compensation;

        {e)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge ofa plan of distribution;

        (t)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
thereof upon the undersigned;

        (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
undersigned was entitled; and

        (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

                                                         '2012.
       IN THE cmcurr COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
 IN RE: ESTATE OF               File No. 502011 CP000653XXXXSB
 SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                    Probate Division
 Deceased.                             Division


      WAI VER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
     FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
        DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
                   CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

        The undersigned, Pamela B. Simon, whose address is 950 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2603,
Chicago, IL 60606, and who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
        (a)     Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

        (b)     Waives the filing and service ofa final or other accounting by 1he personal representative;

        (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
tobe paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
personal representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

         (d)     Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
manner of determining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of detennining such compensation; and waives any
objections to the payment of such compensation;

        (e)     Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

        (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
thereof upon the undersigned;

        (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
undersigned was entitled; and

        (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

        Signed on               ~f'                     ,2012.
                                                      Beneficiary


                                                      By: _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __
                                                         PAMELA B. SI:MON
      IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
 IN RE: ESTATE OF                File No. 50201 ICP000653XXXXSB
 SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                     Probate Division
 Deceased.                              Division


   WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
  FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
     DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
               CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

        The undersigned, Ted S. Bernstein, whose address is 880 Berkeley Street, Boca Raton. Florida
33487, and who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
        (a)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

        (b)      Waives the filing and service of a final or other accounting by the personal representative;

         (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
personal representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

        (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
manner of detennining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
objections lo rhe payment of such compensation;

        (e)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge ofa plan of distribution;

        (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
thereof upon the undersigned;

        (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
undersigned was entitled; and

        (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
hearing or waiting period a d ·rhout further accounting.

        Signed on   g, I                                   2012.




                                                       :~~;  DBERNSTEIN
EXHIBIT 13 - THIS COURT'S MEMO TO TS
                                                  MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 5, 2012

TO:    Robert L. Spallina, Esq.

FROM: Astride Limouzin Case Manager, on behalf of -                 I XIJUDGE MARTIN H. COLIN                           Division - JY
      This offiee does not provide legal advice                     [   !JUDGE JAMES L. MARTZ                           Division - IZ
      For procedural inquiries Tel. #561-274-1424                   I   ]JUDGE ROSEMARIE SCHER                          Division - IX

CASE NUMBER:             50 2011 CP000653XXXXSB                      Estate of Shirley Bernstein

       MATTER:           Documents being returned                   Order of discharge

       Death certificate (CERTIFIED COPY) not submitted. F.S. §731.103, Probate Rule 5.205 & Probate Rule 5.171

       Receipted bill for funeral expenses required (Must be paid in full). ·

       Proofofwill or codicil is required; it is not self-proved. Please review F.S. §732.502; 733.201; P.R. 5.210 & P.R. 5.230.

       Order admitting will/ codicil/ and or appointing personal representative is either missing or incorrect. FS§73J.201,
       R.5.210 &5.235

       Petition and order designating a restricted depository, and acceptance is required FS §69.031    &cJS §744.351(6).
                                                                                                         o~~ N
       Oath of Personal Representative, of Guardian or Administrator Ad Litem and designation of r~~ agamt was not
       submitted or incorrect. Resident agent must sign the acceptance. (Rule 5.110, 5.120 and 5.320 com'liiitt~otes).
                                                                                                         -<r.'1--
                                                                                                         -<:X:-::v          I
        Proof of publication not submitted. Rule 5.241.                                                  ~£~
                                                                                                         ;eng             °'
                                                                                                         ~-0-             .>
       Statement regarding creditors not submitted. Probate Rule 5.241 (d).                              c-; C::.:'"'     ::n::
                                                                                                         =f~n
        Inventory not submitted. Probate Rule 5.340.                                                     ::!~;:;;         9
                                                                                                        ~::71~
                                                                                                        cr:::it           0)
       All claims must be satisfied, struck, or dismissed.
        Final certificate of estate tax or affidavit of non-tax is not submitted. FS §198.26 & 193.28

       All Beneficiaries must join in the petition or they must receive formal notice on the petition. FS §735.203 & Probate
        Rule 5.530(b).

XX     Receipts for assets from ·an of the specific beneficiaries were not notarized.

       Receipt of final accounting, service of petition for discharge and/or waiver from all residuary beneficiaries or
        qualified trust beneficiaries are required. See. R. 5.400. Attorney fees see FS §733.6171(6), 731.302, 731.303(l)(b)
       and Probate Rule 5.180(b). Committee notes (one person serving in two (2) fiduciary capacities may not waive or
       consent to the persons acts without the approval of those who the person represents).

       Proof of service of the Objection to the Claims. FS §733.705(2), Probate Rule. 5.496 & Probate Rule 5.040.

       Proof of Service of the Notice to Creditors to the Agency for Health Care Administration. FS §733.2121(d) & Probate
       Rule 5.241 (a).

        For Lost/Destroyed Wills/Codicils please comply with FS § 733.207, 733.201(2) & Probate Rule 5.510

        An 8:45 a.m. motion calendar hearing (limited to 5 mins) with notice to all interested parties is required.
        Notice must be at least five (S) business days (Tue, Wed and Thurs). Please verify suspension dates. Files must be
       ·order via the internet at http://ISthcircuit.co.palm-beach.fl.us/web/guestlcadmin.

       OTHER:


                     PLEASE RETURN A COPY OF THIS MEMORANDUM AND PROPOSE ORDERS WHEN REPLYING:
                ..\DDRESS TO THE CLERK AN!) COMPTROLLER. 200 W ATLANTIC AVENUE.DELRAY BEACH. FL 3344.f
EXHIBIT 14-WAIVERS NOTARIZED IN PAST
\.::'   ..                                ""f:···}f ··--·      - J"   -~   ·-   ·~   ••.~ .
 ~\.    --
         .~   .




                        IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY; FL
                   TN RE: ESTA TE OF                        File No. 50201 ICP000653XXXXSB                                                     ·zo12 NOV-lf9 PM 2:. 29
                   SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                                 Pn~bate                 Division
                                                                                                                                                   SHA.ROH H. BOCK. CLERK
                   Deceased.                                          Division                                                                    PALM BE"-CH COUNTY. fl
                                                                                                                                               .: SOUTH CTY BRMlCH-F!LEO

                     WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
                    FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
                       DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
                                 CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

                          The undersigned, Eliot Bernstein, whose address is 27 53 NW 34th Street, Boca Raton, FL 33434, and
                  who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
                          (a)     E~pressly acknowledges that the undersigned                              is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

                          (b)     Waives the filing and service ofa final or other accounting by the personal representative;

                           (c)      Waives the incJusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
                  to be paid to the personal representative,.attomeys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
                  personal representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

                          (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
                  manner of determining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
                  or·other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
                  objections to the payment of such compensation;

                          (e)     Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

                          (t)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
                  thereof upon the undersigned;

                          (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
                  undersigned was entitled; and

                          (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
                  hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

                          Signed on           may                     I5                             ' 2012.




                  (Affix Notarial Seal)
                                                                                                        -   .- ... , ... .... ...._ . .'f··. ,   -   ~- .-. -   . .. .                       .    :
                                                                                                                                                                                                  ~




                       fNTHE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
                  fN RE: ESTATE OF                        File No. 502011CP000653XXXXSB                                                          Z0\'2 MDV Hf P:M 2: 29  · .'· ·   ,)



                  SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                               Probate Division
                                                                                                                                                      SH/\ROH ft SOCK. CLERK
                                                                                                                                                     PALM BEMH COUNTY. FL
                  Deceased.                                       DivisiQn                                                                           SOUTH CTY BRANCH-FILED

                    WAIVER OFACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION.
                   FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF ]>ETITION FOR
                      DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
                               CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

                         The undersigned, Jill Iantoni, whose address is 2101 MagnoliaLane, Highland Park, IL 60035 , and
                 who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
                         (a)       Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

                         (b)       Waives the filing and serviceofa final or other accounting by the personal representative;

                          (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Di"scharge of the amount of compensation paid or
                 to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
                 personal .representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

                         (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
                 manner of detennining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys,.accountants, appraisers,
                 or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner ofdetermining such compensation; and waives any
                 objections to the payment of such compensation;

                         (e)       Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

                         (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
                 thereof upon the undersigned;

                         (g)    Ac;knowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
                 undersigned was entitled; and

                         (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
                 hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

                         Signed on _      _,,.                   ,______J./_ _ _ , 2012.
                                           Q'-"-f"'-'--/o=b""'--"""eL

                                                                                Beneficiary             J                                    ~~
                                                                                                            1
                                                                              By:
                                                                                 JILL lANTOil'J
                                                                                                 QA~~~ -
                                   Swo~~~
                                                 ' •\\\\\Uilil11111.
                                             ,,~~~···     RLYMo'''~                   ~
                                                                   ~o before me on ufui/;fr
                                                                                              _,_J...
                                                                                                  j
                                                                                                           , 2012, by JILL
                 !ANTONI, who is pel!jO!\i                      ;~~· m~/      or who produced
                    .d "fi .          .::- ·~                   ~~·. ,,,.                     - - - - -- - - - - - - -
1,:; .
  {'     ...
                 as 1 ent1 1cat10n. :
                                     :-:
                                        *:   :           ca. • ..,
                                                                     a>~· :
                                                                       :•E
                                     ··z•
                                      ·- ~9., ~.     #EE 156021
                                                                       • -
                                                                      .: s;§
         -:- .                         ·~~ •;fj,,_&..."   .       •   ~;::



                                                                                                                                                                                          -
                                                                                                                                                                                         '.:
                                        ·-:;.~~~~~l[&ltnf') ·~"'·· ~~
                 (Affix Notarial Seal) ~~~~-~-~-~~~
                               •

                                            ~'/lh~IC STA~ O'/li,~-:;,                                                                                                                     '.';.
                                                ' !111i11mt1l\''~



                                                                                                                                                                                        1¥
                                                                                                                                                                                                  .
                                                                                                                                                                                                  .



                                                                                                                                                                                           .
'~
...

                     IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
       IN RE: EST ATE OF                                                 File No. 50201 ICP000653XXXXSB
                                                                                                                            Z012NOV 1-9· PM 2: 29
       SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                                                     Probate Division
                                                                                                                              SHAROH H. BOCX.GLERK
       Deceased.                                                              Division                                       PALM BEACH COUNTY. FL
                                                                                                                            .SOUW CTY BRt',,NCH-flLEO

             WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
            FOR DISCHAR.GE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
               DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
                         CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

                             The undersigned, Lisa S. Friedstein, whose address is 2142 Church ii I Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035,
      and who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
                             (a)                       Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

                             (b)                       Waives the filing and service of a final or other accounting by the personal representative;

               (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
      to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
      personal representative, and the manner of detennining that compensation;

              (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
      manner of determining the compensation ·Of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
      or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
      objections to the payinerit-Of Such compensation;

                             (e)                       Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

              (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
      thereof upon the undersigned;

              (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
      undersigned was entitled; and

              (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
      hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

                             s;gned on                               ~WJ± d I                  • 2012.

                                                                                             Beneficiary




,'




                                                                                                                                                               _,fl' t"
                                                                                                                                                              _~_' _ '_,
                                                                                                                                                              ..
      ··-   .   -   - - ~-   -·   - :.-   .   ·.: ~   ·~   ·.   -.                                                                              - · ._: . . -_Z --
                                                                                                                                                        -~ "~ -    \   ,"   .·   --~~
                          ...                                              ,..          . .,. -   .··..   -~ · · · ~   ....   ···-. - -:   -   ---------.-,-~ -- ~-.




                  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
             IN RE: ESTATE OF                   File No. 50201 ICP000653XXXXSB
             SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                         Probate Division
             Deceased.                                  Division


               WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
              FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
                 DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
                           CONSENT TO DISCHARGE .

                    The undersigned, Pamela B. Simon, whose address is 950 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2603,
            Chicago, IL 60606, and who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
                    (a)         Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned.is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

                    (b)         Waives the filing and service of a final or other accounting by the personal representative;

                     (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
            to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed by the
            personal representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

                    (d)      E){pressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
            manner of determining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
            or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
            objections to the payment of such compensatfon;

                    (e)         Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

                    (f)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
            thereof upon the undersigned;

                    (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
            undersigned was entitled; and

                  (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
            h=ing or waiting p«iod and wit]! further accounting.

                    Signedon                    f? 'f
                                                 (
                                                                        ,2012.




    : ...                                                                                                                                                          '2012, by
     , ·.                                                                                                                           or           who                produced
    . ,-_
I




'.
        ,. -•   :: '~   · ·.I -:·   ~ ;-•   •. '•   ',          -   •   •   '   ' ·• •,I•   ~ -         - •   ..... .   ~.r ~   .. "   •. ''T '. ~ ;- ..   •   · '.   ..,




      IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
 IN RE: ESTA TE OF                                            FileNo. 5020l 1CP000653XXXXSB
 SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                                                             Probate Division
 Deceased.                                                                      Division


   WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
  FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITIONFOR
     DISCHARGE; AND RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND
               CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

         The undersigned, Ted S. Bernstein, whose address is 880 Berkeley Street, Boca: Raton, Florid.a
33487, and who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
        (a)                  Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

        (b)                  Waives the filing and service of a final or other accounting by the personal representative;

         (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, .appraisers, or other agents employed by the
personal representative, and the manner of determining that compensation;

        (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
manner_ of detennining the compensatiOn of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
objections to the p~yment of such compensation;                             ·

        (e)                  Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge ofa plan of distribution;

        (t)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal .rep.resentative and all notice
thereof upon the undersigned;

        (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
undersigned was entitled; and

        (h)     Consents to the entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

        s;gned on                                        ~1\\ I l..                               . 2012.
EXHIBIT 15-SIMON'S WAIVER SIGNED POST MORTEM
                                                                                       ........--;.            -.
                                                                                                         . .- .. -. - .•-.
                                                                                                      ""~-                   l~.-.   ~'.~.:   ·'




                IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
           IN RE: ESTA TE OF               File No. 5020l 1CP000653XXXXSB
           SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN,                     Probate Division
           Deceased.                              Division


             WAIVER OF ACCOVNTING.AND..~OR:'.fIONS OF PETITION
            FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR
               DISCHARGE; ANI) RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND .
                         CONSENT TO DISCHARGE

                  The undersigned, Simon L. Bernstein, whose address is 7020 Lions Head Lane, Boca Raton, Florida
          33496, and who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate:
                  (a)     Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned is aware of the right to have a final accounting;

                  (b)      Waives the filing and service of a fin.al or other accounting by the personal representative;

                   (c)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of the amount of compensation paid or
          to be paid to the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or other agents employed. by the
          personal representative, and the manner of detennining that compensation;

                  (d)      Expressly acknowledges that the undersigned has actual knowledge of the amount and
          manner of determining the compensation of the personal representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers,
          or other agents; has agreed to the amount and manner of determining such compensation; and waives any
          objections to the payment of such compensation;

                  (e)      Waives the inclusion in the Petition for Discharge of a plan of distribution;

                  (t)     Waives service of the Petition for Discharge of the personal representative and all notice
          thereof upon the undersigned;

                  (g)    Acknowledges receipt of complete distribution of the share of the estate to which the
          undersigned was entitled; and

                  (h)     Consents to the. entry of an order discharging the personal representative without notice,
          hearing or waiting period and without further accounting.

                  Signed on _ _      L\ \_ !_?.-- __ _~ 2012.
                                     _ q_I_ _




                                                                                                                                                    ·.•
                                                                                                                                                   .•, .·L




....· .   •..
EXHIBIT 16 - PETITIONER REVOCATION OF WAIVER
:.




     IN THE CIRCUIT COlJRT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
     FLORIDA                              PROBATE DfVISION

     IN RE: ESTATE OF                                FILE.NO.: 5020 11 CP000653XXXXSB
     SH IRLEY BERSTEfN,
                                                     Division: Probate
           Deceased.



        REVOCATION OF: WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING AND PORTIONS OF PETITION
       FOR DISCHARGE; WAIVER OF SERVICE OF PETITION FOR DISCHARGE; AND
               RECEIPT OF BENEFICIARY AND CONSENT TO DISCHARGE
                                                                                   111
            The undersigned, Eliot Bernstein, w hose address is 2753 NW 34 Street, Boca Raton. FL

     33434, and who has an interest in the above estate as beneficiary of the estate :

            (a) I expressly revoke the "Wai ver of Accounting and Portions of Petition for Discharge;

                Waiver of Service of Petition for Discharge; And Receipt of Beneficiary and Consent

                to Discharge" (he rein after the ··Waiver"') r signed· ::VIay 15, 2012 .

            (b) Although I signed the Waiver on May 15, 2012, I did not sign it before any notary.

                The attached Waiver was notarized and filed with the Court \Vithout my knowledge.

            (c) It was not expl.a ined to, nor was it k.11own by, me the rights I was waiving.

            (d) Undue pressure and influence was placed upon me to sign the above referenced

                p leading \·vithout an understanding of the rights and privileges that were being

                waived.

            THEREFORE, E liot Bernstein, through undersigned cotmsel, respectfully requests this

     Court vacate, void, nullify, and render ineffective the "\Vaiver of Acco unting and Portions of

     Petition for Discharge~ Waiver of Service of Petition for Discharge; And Receipt of Benefic iary

     and Consent to Discharge" he signed May l5, 201 2.

                                [SlGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
          Under penalties of pe~jury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged
 are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


         lgned on this ~3 day of January, 2013.
     I     //,.    /C~-' .
    ( ( t { tJZ K.( t  t('-k/                          ,-.
        NE
  CHRlSTJ P. YATES ·                                                              E
 Bar No. 122653
 Attorney for Petitioner
 TRIPP SCOTT, P.A.
 110 SE 6th Strc~t. 15th Floor
 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
 Telephone: (954) 760-4916
 Fax: (954) 761-8475




STATE OF FLORJDA
COUNTY OF BROWARD

         SWORN TO AND SUBSCRJBED before me on January 23, 2013 by the Beneficiary, ELIOT
 BERNSTEIN, who is personally known to me or has produced the following form of identification :
/.2.LlJ/ u- :5 L1 t P, ! s e. .


              ,-;_Jf:A~'fi;,~-·-          CINDY KAONEN
                                                                                       L_,1_,__
            ;:/    ~ ·-~,_\         MY COMMISSION MEE 114340                      NoJ6ry Pub lic - S ate of Florida
            j%~·:d~~·?°i                EXPIRES: J~ly 20, 2015
                                                                                  l'vJY Comm issio1 Expires:
            .....
            L-::-,~;,'rfr; .\~~$.~ 8ondci.! T:nJ Notary =>ubltC Um:terYmter.s (
              .
           __ .....  ~             ~---.,..,.      ..... ..........
                                                          ~                  ~
EXHIBIT 17 -SIGNATURE PAGES OF ALLEGED 2012 AMENDED
                        TRUST
                                        SIMON L. BERNSTEIN

                          AMENDED AND RESTATED TRUST AGREEMENT


          This Amended and Restated Trust Agreement is dated this            "}ta::   of
and is between SIMON L. BERNSTEIN, of Palm Beach County, Florida referre t in the irst person,
                                                                                                    , 2012,

as settlor, and SIMON L. BERNSTEIN, of Palm Beach County, Florida and SI                 L. B RNSTEIN's
successors, as trustee (referred to as the "Trustee," which term more particularly refers to aJI individuals
and entities serving as trustee of a trust created hereunder during the time of such service, whether alone
or as co-trustees, and whether originally serving or as a successor trustee).

         WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, I created and funded the SIMON L. BERNSTEIN TRl)ST
AGREEMENT (the "TrustAgreement,"which reference includes any subsequent amendments of said
trust agreement);

        WHEREAS, Paragraph A. of Article I. of said Trust Agreement provides, inter alia, that during
my lifetime I shall have the right at any time and from time to time by an instrument, in writing,
delivered to the Trustee to amend or revoke said Trust Agreement, in whole or in pa1t.

        NOW, THEREFORE, I hereby amend and restate the Trust Agreement in its entirety and the
Trustee accepts and agrees to perform its duties and obligations in accordance with the following
amended provisjons. Notwithsta11ding any deficiencies in execution or other issues in regard to whether
any prior version of this Tiust Agreement was a valid and binding agreement or otherwise created an
effective trust, this amended and restated agreement shall constitute a valid, binding and effective trust
agreement and shall amend and succeed all prior versions described above or otherwise predating this
amended and restated Trust Agreement.


                       ARTICLE I. DURING MY LIFE AND UPON MY DEATH

         A.     Rights Reserved. I Ieserve the right (a) to add property to this trust during my life or on
rriy death, by my Will or otherwise; (b) to withdraw property held hereunder; and (c) by separate written
instrument delivered to the Trusroe, to revoke this Agreement in whole or in part and otherwise modify
or amend this Agreement.

         B.      Payments During My Life. If income producing property is held in the trust during my
life, the Trustee shall pay the net income of the trust to me or as 1 may direct. However, during any
periods while I am Disabled, the Trustee shall pay to me or on my behalf such amounts of the net income
and principal of the trust as is proper for my Welfare. Any income not so paid shall be added to
principal.



SIMON L. BERNSTEIN
AMENDEO AND RESTATi=D TRUST AGREEMENT

                                         LAW      OFFICES

                                 TESCHER &: SPALLINA, P.A.
                                              ~t;:}~":;:.~~.:~a"r.<t:J:1,o;--------
._,   •,,   j ••
                                                                         )   ·.
                                                                                                                        ,   "·




                                                              =:=::==============:::::=========

                         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amended and Restated Trust
                   Agreement on the date first above written.

                                                                                        SETTLOR and TRUSTEE:
                                                                                                                                     --·




                            This instrument was sig d by SIMON L. BERNSTEJN in our presence, and at the request of
                   and in th_n~ence of I            . BERNSTEIN and each other, we subscribe our names as witnesses
                   on thisc::2:f_ day o                     2 .2:




                   STA TE OF FLORIDA
                                                                   SS.
                   COUNTY OF PALM BEACH

                         The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this26iay of
                   by SIMON L. BERNSTEIN.                                  ~
                                                                                                               J u.\y       ,2012,




                   [Seal with Commission Expiration Date]
                         NOTARY PUBLIC·STATE OF FLORIDA
                          ..............   Lindsay Baxley
                         f ~W ~ CommiSllion # EE092282
                         \'f!!!..l Expires: MAY 10, 2015
                         BQNDEDTHRU ATLANTlCBOND!NGCO.,JNC.
                   Personally Known              or"Produced Identification _ _ _ __
                   Type of Identification P r o d u c e d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




                   SJMON L BERNST61N
                   AMENDED AND REsTATED TRUST AGREEMENT                      -    24-
                                                                   LAW       OFFICES

                                                       TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.
                                                                   ---S:';i;J..§".;.~"!"".i.\~Z>:.e.~:------




                                                                                                                                           .\
EXHIBIT 18- SIGNATURE PAGES OF 2012 WILL OF SIMON
                         63.J(JI~{]. f O() l/2/1()' )')')' S f'J
                                                            .:C2--
                                    WILL OF

                          SIMON L. BERNSTEIN




                                    Prepared by:

                             Tescher & Spallina, P.A.
             4855 Technology Way, Suite 720, Boca Raton, Florida 3343 J
                                 (561) 997-7008
                             www.tescherspallina.com




                                                      I
                    TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.



CFN 20120398293 1 OR BK 25507 PG 1559,RECORDED 10/05/201210:40:46
Sharon R. Bock, CLERK & COMPTROLLER, Palm Beach County, NUM OF PAGES 9 :crf-·. ~.::J;
                                                                               !1tr.
                  d and signed this instrument as my Will at Boca Raton, Florida, on the      ~y of
-~--· 2012.




        This instrument, consisting of this page mbered 7 and the preceding typewritten pages, was
signed, sealed, published and declared by the Testator to be the Testator's Will in our resence, and at
the Testator's request a Ci ·n the Testator's presence. and in the !'))~nee of e        ot er, we have
                                                                  C?'7 .
subscribed our names wit esses at Boca Raton, Florida on this - - dav of                     VL't    -
                                                                                                      ,
2012 ..
                                                              RoBBttT L. SPALLINA
~~'---..,.-,..,..---;:c7"++---- residing at _ _ __ _ _7=3_8_7_W_1s_TE--=RIA=-A-=-VENU~=-=-E_ _ _ __
                                                             PARKLAN~~f'~~076

                                                                       [ W1t11css   Addr~)




                                                         Kimberly Moran
                                                          6362 Las ~\ore!S"~'""1
                                                          Boca Raton, FL 33433
                                                                       [Wiu1ess Address)



                                                           -===
                                   =======~===============--




LAST WILL
OF SIMON L BERNSTEIN                               -7-
                                          LAW     OFFiCES

                              TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.
                                                                                     - - - ----· --------- - - - - - - - - - - - - -




State Of Florida
                                                 SS.
County Of Palm Beach

        I, SI MON L. BERNSTEIN, declare to the officer taking                                            _is instrument,
and to the subscribing witnesses. that I signed this instrument s




                       /)                                                 SIM NL. BERNSTEIN, Testator

             We;     !/oiJc-r {            '<.   \;tt-l.r ,., ,_          and   ;(:'/ r1{)c "'"'"7   ;;.?... ._,., . .) ,
have been sworn by the officer srgn;t;g below, and declare to thirtOfficer on our oaths that the Testator
declared the instrument to be the Testator's will and signed it in our presence an t t we each signed
the instrument as a witness in the presence of the Testator and of eac;h1~1ef':-t'7''------




        Acknowledged and subscribed before me, by the Testator, SIMON L. BERNSTEIN, who is
personally known to me or who has produced                                                (state type
of ident~fication) as identification, and sworn to and subscribed before me by the witnesses,
      Rote(\- l .                    Spc,\ \\ (\.(.\_
                                                   who is personally known to me or who has
produced                                              (state type ofidentification) as-identification,
and         K\Mbe r\'i M                         oro.o                      ,
                                                       who is persona11y known to me or who has
produced                                              (sta!elype ofidenlifica!ion)as identification,
and subscribed by me in the presence of SIMON L.   RNSTEIN and the subscribing witnesses, all on
this25_day of        ~U \               y  201 .           ,

[Seal with Commission Expiration Date]

              NOTARY PUBLlC·STATEOF FLORIDA
               .............   Lindsay Baxley
              [W. ! Commission# EE092282
              '-.'1¥ii Expires: MAY .10, 2015
              'IONDED THRU ATLA!ITIC BONDING co., lliC.

i_AST WILL
OF S!MON L   BERN STEii\:                                           -8-
                                                          LAW      OFl"ICES


                                         TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.


CFN 20120398293 BOOK 25507 PAGE 1567. 9 OF 9
EXHIBIT 19- RELEVANT PAGES OF WILL EXHIBIT
               •                                        •
descendants.   Except as provided in Article SECOND of this Will,
I have not made any provisions herein for PAMELA BETH SIMON or
any of her descendants not out of lack of love or affection but
because they have been adequately provided for.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF,                  set my hand and
affixed my seal this   I (day

                                                            (L.S.)
          The foregoing instrume , consisting of this and
seventeen preceding typewritten pages, was signed, sealed,
published and declared by SIMON L. BERNSTEIN, the Testator, to be
his Last Will and Testament, in our presence, and we, at his
request and in his presence and in the presence of each pfJfer,

~
   e h reunto subscribed our names as witnesses, this /8    day of
            , Two Thousand at 2255 Glades Road, Boca Raton,
Fl ida.


/~~idingat


~residing




                                18
                                                                         •
STATE OF FLORIDA
                                       SS.:
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH

               W7,   S,IMON L. BERNSTEIN, (j'(!<J~ /). f\'«/to/e:tn/,,,,, and
{?oW'f Ja.rof;([(/tl1Tz..       , the Testat6r and the witnesses
respectively, whose names are signed to the attached or foregoing
instrument, were sworn, and declared to the undersigned officer
that the Testator. in the presence of the witnesses, signed the
instrument as his Last Will and that each of   e witnesses, in
the presence of the Testator and in the pr    ce of each other,
signed the Will as a witness.


                                                               Testator




                                                 ~               Witness




                                                                                {j
EXHIBIT 20 -STANFORD TRANSFER OF FUNDS RELEASE LETTER
Eliot Ivan Bernstein

From:                              Eliot Ivan Bernstein <iviewit@iviewit.tv>
Sent:                              Monday, June 16, 2008 2:20 PM
To:                                'Christopher R. Prindle@ Stanford Financial Group (cprind le@stanfordeagle.com)'
Cc:                                'Simon Bernstein'
Subject:                           Simon Bernstein son Eliot

Contacts:                          Christopher R. Prindle
Tracking:                          Recipient                                           Read

                                   'Christopher R. Prindle@ Stanford Financial Group   Read: 6/16/2008 3:13 PM
                                   (cprindle@stanfordeagle.com)'

                                   'Simon Bernstein'




Chris~  As guardian for my children I want to inform you that my children will be moving into, as residents, the property
at 2753 NW 34th Street, Boca Raton, FL 33434 and where funds are needed to purchase that residence to provide for
their shelter. The funds being transferred will be used for their purchase of the home.


If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me. If you would, please reply to confirm your receipt of
this message. Thanks - Eliot Bernstein.

Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
lviewit Technologies, Inc.
lviewit Holdings, Inc.
39 Little Ave
Red Bluff, California 96080-3519
(530) 529-4110 (o)
(530) 526-5751 (c)
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv

TH IS MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED FILES INCORPORATED HEREIN CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PROPRIETARY AND
CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM
READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THIS MAIL AND ITS ATIACHMENTS. PLEASE
DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED FILES WITHOUT READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR
SAVING THEM, AND NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT (530) 529-4110. IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU
ARE PROHIBITED FROM FORWARDING THEM OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSING THESE CONTENTS TO OTHERS, UNLESS
EXPRESSLY DESIGNATED BY THE SENDER. THANK YOU!




                                                                  1
Eliot Bernstein
39 Little Ave
Red Bluff, CA 96080-3519
RE: Children's Residence


June 18, 2008


Mr. Louis Fournet
President
Stanford Trust Company
445 North Boulevard, 8th Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70802


Dear Mr. Fournet:

Please be advised that as guardian for my children that they will be moving into a
residence, with the address of 2753 NW 34th Street, Boca Raton, FL 33434.

We are requesting that the funds from the children's individual Irrevocable Trust
accounts be used toward the purchase of this residence. This is necessary to provide
shelter for the children. These are the only available funds for this residence. My
children are listed below.

Josh Bernstein
Jacob Bernstein
Daniel Bernstein
Eliot & Candice Bernstein
39 Little Ave
Red Bluff, CA 96080-3519



June 18, 2008


Mr. Louis Fournet
President
Stanford Trust Company
445 North Boulevard, 8th Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70802

RE: Distribution for Children's Residence

Dear Mr. Fournet:

Please be advised that as guardians for our children, Josh, Jacob and Daniel Bernstein
that they will be moving into a residence, with the address of2753 NW 34th Street, Boca
Raton, FL 33434. We hereby, indemnify Stanford Trust Company for this distribution
with respect to any future needs of the children.




                                    Candice Bernstein
Eliot Bernstein
39 Little Ave
Red Bluff, CA 96080-3519
RE: Children's Residence


June 18, 2008


Mr. Louis Fournet
President
Stanford Trust Company
445 North Boulevard, 8th Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70802


Dear Mr. Fournet:

Please be advised that as guardian for my children that they will be moving into a
residence, with the address of2753 NW 34th Street, Boca Raton, FL 33434.

We are requesting that the funds from the children's individual Irrevocable Trust
accounts be used toward the purchase of this residence. This is necessary to provide
shelter for the children. These are the only available funds for this residence. My
children are listed below.

Josh Bernstein
Jacob Bernstein
Daniel Bernstein
Eliot & Candice Bernstein
39 Little Ave
Red Bluff, CA 96080-3519



June 18, 2008


Mr. Louis Fournet
President
Stanford Trust Company
445 North Boulevard, 8th Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70802

RE: Distribution for Children's Residence

Dear Mr. Fournet:

Please be advised that as guardians for our children, Josh, Jacob and Daniel Bernstein
that they will be moving into a residence, with the address of2753 NW 34th Street, Boca
Raton, FL 33434. We hereby, indemnify Stanford Trust Company for this distribution
with respect to any future needs of the children.




                                    Candice Bernstein
EXHIBIT 21 - BALLOON MORTGAGE
                                                                         1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 II Ill It !ll 11111

                                                                      C.:Fh      2Q1QlB0::127E.~11
                                                                      OR      BK 22841                   PG       1818
                                                                      RECORHED '1'9/M/2008 14~10::2:1
                                                                      Pa1Jr1 Beach Cour.ii.}'t Flmricie
 This Instrument prepared by:                                         AMT '.'3E.:1t 000. t:-10
                                                                      Deed D·m:: 1 t 277. ~~
 Robert L. Spallina, Esq.                                             StJan:m R. Bc1ck, CLERK l> COMPTROLLER
 Tescher & Spallina, P.A.                                             Pgs 1818 - 1B20t (3pgs>
 2101 Corporate Boulevard, Suite l 07
 Boca Raton, FL 33431
 (561) 998-7847

 THIS IS A BALLOON MORTGAGE AND THE FINAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OR THE
 PRINCIPAL BALANCE DUE UPON MATURITY IS $365,000.00, TOGETHER WITH AC-
 CRUED INTEREST, IF ANY, AND ALL ADV AN CEMENTS MADE BY THE MORTGAGEE
 UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS SECOND MORTGAGE.

                                        SECOND MORTGAGE


    THIS SECOND MORTGAGE is made and executed the ~day of July, 2008, by SIMON L.
BERNSTEIN, whose address is 7020 Lions Head Lane, Boca Raton, Florida 33496, hereinafter referred
to as the "Mortgagee"(which term shall include the Mortgagee's heirs, successors and assigns), to
BERNSTEIN FAMILY REAL TY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company whose post office address
is 950 Peninsula Corporate Circle, Suite 3010, Boca Raton, Florida 33487, hereinafter referred to as the
"Mortgagor" (which term shall include the Mortgagor's heirs, successors and assigns).

            WITNESSETH, for good and valuable considerations, and in consideration of the aggregate
sum in that certain promissory note ofeven date herewith (hereinafter referred to as the "Note"), Mortgag-
or does hereby grant, bargain, sell, alien, remise, release, convey and confirm unto Mortgagee, in fee
simple, that certain property of which Mortgagor is now seized and possessed situate in Palm Beach
County, State ofF1orida, legally described as follows, including all improvements now or hereafter placed
thereon, which property and improvements are hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Property":

            Lot 68, Block G, BOCA MADERA UNTT 2, according to the Plat thereof,
            recorded in Plat Book 32, Pages 59 and 60, of the Public Records of Palm Beach
            County, Florida.

          TO HA VE AND TO HOLD the Property, together with the tenements, hereditaments and
appurtenances thereof, unto Mortgagee in fee simple.

           AND Mortgagor hereby covenants with Mortgagee that Mortgagor is indefeasibly seized of
the Property in fee simple, that Mortgagor has fol! power and lawful right to convey the Property to
Mortgagee in fee simple, that it shall be lawful for Mortgagee at all times peaceably and quietly to enter
upon, hold, occupy and enjoy the Property, that the Property is free from all encumbrances, that
Mortgagor will make such further assurance to perfect the fee simple title to the Property in Mortgagee
as may reasonably be required, and that Mortgagor hereby fulJy warrants the title to the Property and wi II
defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
            PROVIDED ALWAYS, that if Mortgagor shall pay unto Mortgagee the Note, of which the
 following in words and figures is a true copy:

                                         See Attached Exhibit "A"

and shall perform, comply with and abide by all of the conditions and covenants of the Note and of this
Second Mortgage, then this Second Mortgage and the estate thereby created shall cease and be null and
void.

            AND Mortgagor hereby covenants and agrees as follows:

            I.     To pay all the principal and interest and other sums of money payable under the Note
and this Second Mortgage, or either of them, promptly on the days the same severally become due and
any other Note or Second Mortgage securing the property described herein.

           2.       To pay all the taxes, assessments, levies, liabilities, obligations, and encumbrances
of every nature on the Property, and if the same be not promptly paid, Mortgagee may at any time pay
the same without waiving or affecting the option to foreclose or any right hereunder, and every payment
so made shall bear interest from the date thereof at the rate of eighteen (18%) percent per annum.
Mortgagor shall pay the annual real estate taxes no later than November 30th of each year and shall send
Mortgagee proof of payment no later than December 31st of said year.

            3.       To pay all and singular the costs, charges and expenses, including reasonable attorney's
fees, incurred or paid at any time by Mortgagee because of the failure on the part ofMortgagorto perform
each and every covenant of the Note and this Second Mortgage, or either of them, and every such
payment shall bear interest from the date of payment by Mortgagee at the rate of eighteen (18%) percent
per annum.

             4.       To keep the Property insured in a sum not less than the greater of (a) $365,000 or (b)
the maximum insurable value of the improvements thereon, in a company or companies to be approved
by Mortgagee, which policy or policies shall be held by and shall be payable to Mortgagee, and in the
event any sum of money becomes payable under such policy or policies, Mortgagee shall have the option
to receive and apply the same on account of the indebtedness hereby secured or to permit the Mortgagor
to rcceiv\: and use il or any pan rhereoffor orher purposes, without thereby waivi11g or impairing any
equity, lien or right under or by virtue of this Second Mortgage, and may place and pay for such insurance
or any part thereof without waiving or affecting the option to foreclose or any right hereunder, and each
and every such payment shall bear interest from the date ofpayment by Mortgagee at the rate often (10%)
percent per annum.

            5.       To permit, commit or suffer no waste, impairment or deterioration of the Property
or any part thereof.

            6.      To perform, comply with, and abide by each and every condition and covenant set
forth in the N te and in this Second Mortgage.

            7.      If any of said sums of money herein referred to be not promptly and fully paid within
ten (10) days a terthe same severally become due and payable, or if each and every one of the conditions
and covenants of the Note and this Second Mortgage, or either of them, are not fully perfonned, the
aggregate sum due under the Note shall become due and payable forthwith or thereafter at the option
of the Mortgagee, as fully and completely as if the said aggregate sum of $365 ,000 were origin~lly
stipulated to be paid on such day, anything in the Note or this Second Mortgage to the contrary
notwithstanding. In addition to the above provisions, any payments made more than fifteen (15) days
after their due date shal I be subject to an automatic late charge of ten (10%) percent of the amount of
said payment.

               8.          If all or any part of the described property or any legal or equitable interest therein
is sold, transferred or encumbered by Mortgagor, excluding a transfer by devise, descent or by operation
of law upon the death of Mortgagor, Mortgagee may, at Mortgagee's sole option, declare all the sums
secured by this Second Mortgage to be immediately due and payable.

              9.     In the event Mortgagee finds it necessary lo bring suit against Mortgagor due to an
alleged default by Mortgagor hereunder, and Mortgagee prevails in said litigation, Mortgagee shall be
entitled to recover from Mortgagor any and all costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Mortgagee
in sai.d litigation.

              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Mortgagor has caused these presents to be executed in its
name, by its proper officers thereunto duly authorized, the day and year first above written.

Signed, Sealed & Delivered                                   BERNSTE         ,fAMIL Y REALTY, LLC a Florida
                                                                           iJlty company
in the presence of:                                                    /




STA TE OF FLORIDA                   )
                                    )
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH

                                                                            D
  The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 'f-laay of July, 2008, by SlMON L.
BERNSTEIN, Manager for BERNSTEIN FAMILY REALTY, LLC.
         NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA
          ..............   Diana Banks
         ( ~ }Corn.miss10n # DD770917
          --•.. ,......·' Exprres: MAY 11, 2012
         :BONDED THRU .hTLhNTlC l!ONDING CO., INC.
                                                     Signature of Notary Public

(Print, type or Stamp Com)Bissioned Name of Notary Public)
Personally Known        v      or Produced Identification
                                                          -----
Type of Identification Produced_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
EXHIBIT 22 - PROMISSORY NOTE
                                           PROMISSORY NOTE

$365,000.00                                                                    Effective as of July 1, 2008
                                                                                Ashville, North Carolina

         For value received, the undersigned promises to pay to the order of SIMON L. BERNSTEIN the
principal sum of Three Hundred Sixty Five Thousand ($365,000.00) Dollars, together with all interest thereon
from the date hereof, to be paid in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest payments under this
Note shall be calculated using the long-term Applicable Federal Rate for July 2008 of four and 55/100 (4.55%)
percent, compounded semi-annually, and payable on each anniversary of this Note. Interest payments shall
commence one year from the date hereof and shall be paid annually on the same date each year thereafter.
The entire principal balance, and all accrued but unpaid interest, shall be due on the earlier of fifteen (15)
years from the date hereof, or the death of SIMON L. BERNSTEIN.

         This Note may be prepaid in whole or in part at anytime without penalty; provided that any partial
prepayment shall be applied first to accrued interest and then to principal. This Note is secured by a Second
Mortgage of even date herewith. Upon a default in the payment of this Note of principal and/or interest or
in the performance of any of the terms of said Mortgage, and if such default shall remain uncured for thirty
(30) days after written notice thereof has been given to Maker, then, at the option of the holder, the entire
principal sum remaining unpaid, together with accrued interest, shall become immediately due and payable
without further notice. This Note, while in default, shall accrue interest at the highest lawful rate of interest
permitted by law. This Note shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida.

         All makers, endorsers, and/or guarantors now or hereafter becoming parties hereto jointly and
severally waive presentment, demand, protest, notices of nonpayment, dishonor, and protest and all notices
of every kind, and jointly and severally agree that in the event of default in the payment of any principal or
interest due hereunder, which shall continue for a period of fifteen (15) days, or upon the occurrence of any
other event deemed a default hereunder or any instrument or document securing the payment of this Note,
the unpaid indebtedness, together with all accrued interest, shall thereupon, at the option of the holder,
become immediately due and payable.

        All makers, endorsers and/or guarantors now or hereafter becoming parties hereto jointly and
severally agree, if this Note becomes in default and is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, to
pay the costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys' and accountants' fees, and similar costs in the
event of appellate review, whether by appeal, certiorari, or other appellate remedies.

         No single or partial exercise ofany power hereunder shall preclude other or further exercises thereof
or the exercise of any other power. No delay or omission on the part of the holder hereof in exercising any
right hereunder shall operate as a waiver of such right or of any right under this Note. The release of any
party liable for this Note shall not operate to release any other party liable hereon.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused these presents to be signed at Ashville, North
Carolina, effective as of the day and year first above written.
                       AFFIDAVIT OF OUT-OF ST ATE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY



STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF PALM BEACH


         Before me this day personally appeared SIMON L. BERNSTEIN ("Affiant"), Manager of
BERNSTEIN FAMILY REALTY, LLC, a Florjda Jjmited ]jabrnty company (the "Company"), who being
first duly sworn by me, deposes and says:

1.     That Affiant is the Manager of the Company;

2.     That on July ':2 , 2008, Affiant, on behalf of the Company, executed in the State of North Carolina
       that certain promissory note payable to SIMON L. BERNSTEIN in the original principal amount of
       Three Hundred Sixty Five Thousand ($365,000 .00) Dollars (the "Promissory Note"); and

3.     That Affiant delivered the Promissory Note directly to SIMON L. BERNSTEIN at Ashville, North
       Carolina for delivery and acceptance.

FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT.




        The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9+k- day of __J_v..__\_ · ____.
                                                                                         .
                                                                                       'j+
2008, by SIMON L. BERNSTEIN, Manager of the Company.
         NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA
         _..•""'"···      Diana Banks                    ~    0                           l
         ~ .W} Commission #DD770917                         \ L)D ---\'..r-.__
         ~-~-~ Expires: MAY 11, 2012                  - - - -- - -- -- - -- -- - - --
         BOl\1l£D THJW Ml.A.\-f!C EONDING CO., INC.   Signature - Notary Public


[Seal with Commission Expiration Date]
                                                      Pnnt, type or stamp name of Notary Public



Personally Known       /     or Produced Identification_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
Type of Identification Produced - - -- - - - - -- - -- -- -- - - - - - --
EXHIBIT 23 -ADVANCEMENT OF INHERITANCE AGREEMENT ("AIA")
08/15/2007         13:34      561392989'3                             JOHN A HERRERA ESQ                                 PAGE     01/02


                                                            LAW OFFICES OF
                                    JOHN A. ;HERRERA, M.Acc.,j.D., LL.M., CPA
                                                   BOA.RD CERTIFIED TAX ATTORNEY
                                              2501 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 107
                                                    BocA RATON, FLORIDA 33432
l!CENSEDTO                                                                                                       VOICE: (581) 392-4626
PRACTICE LAW IN                                                                                                  FAX:    (561) 392-9889
FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA                                                                                              WATS:   (888) 445-3656
&COLORADO                                                                                                        E; jllerrera@ix.netcom.com




        BY FACSIMILE: (530) 529-4 t 10

                                                                August 15. 2007

        Eliot Bernstein
        39 Little A venue
        Red Bluff, CA 96080-3519

        Re:        Advancement of Inheritance
                   Our file number 1522-2.0

        Dear Mr. Bernstein:

                I have been retained by your parents to assist them in their estare planning. You parents
        have asked me to contact you :regarding a possible plan to advance you a portion of the
        inheritance that you may ultimately receive upon their deaths.

                   The plan would work as follows:

               1.     Your parents would each month pay the health insurance premiwns for you, your
        wife Candice and your three children.

                2.     ':" ''· u;._~Jiil.:.;i., Y'-°fi.U parenils want to make gifts to provide your family with a monthly
        cash flow. Tht> annual a.mount of these gifts would be $100,000 per year less the amount that
        they pay in health insurrm'-'~ r1'P,:fl~;~m1:S ff.Jr y!J.ll't family. TI>is amount would be distributed evenly
        over the year in monthly d~~!J.;,;tic~; by- in~

                3.    Tue health irurunmce premiums and the monthly payments \Vill reduce dollar-for-
        dollar the amount that you will ultimately inherit when your parents die.

                    \VhH~ yvuf piife.11ts   may decide to alter or discontinue this plan at any time~ they wanted
        me to make sure that you unde1"~1 that fr.t{;J' n-ill tliscm.1.ill.u1t..· Iua.!..iik.;: t~ · <.' .-:_.._·~l· ileill~h
        insurance premiums and the monthty }NLYitlll;uu if yuu fuuil:h> Vi ila.~....f.! i:g sue. vr il'Hual.z::
        litigation with anyone in your f.ann1y at any time. However.,you may counter claim if you are
        sued by them.



                                        Additional Ojfu:es in West Palm Beach & Boca Raton


 08 - 15- 2\?J07   10~32    'tLlm   BC:.~£1EI'r..\ s~-s23-q11~           I              , ·
                                 5513929889                                         JOJ,i A HERRERA ESQ                                              PAGE         02/02
08/15/2007      13:34




      Eliot Bernstein
      August 15, 2007
      Page2


                 Your parents also want to have the opportunity to visit with their grandchildren at least
      1'0,.u ~iu:.::.5.;. y~. '[uw µii.i._.ili.B wm either come to California or gladly pay all transportation
      wsm for ~i1t;ur dtiJJren to Mme t.o an.other destinatio:ij. You and Candice are more than welcome
      to join your children for these family visits.

                 My !'''~;.'OSe in writin.g to y-0u is to ron:firm in advance that your parents' plan is
                                     make i;1,t1~ tliat you u.ndfil'sran<l tlmt tbe ~~~en~ of your ~:.-alth il1su.ranc.::-.
      ~·7 ':·:.:;:f:;hl~ ~~ :-~:.: :;;n<l t;;
      premiums and other distributions 'ifill r~iu\.:e. ~"'Y an1l1UUt!+ fut!! ym! !lily re.£~ive la!cr. Ifyou find
      these fffl'i'.1!~ ~.<-.~ble, pfoase sign and date belov,' cmd return u:ne copy of this letter to me in fue
      .e.o.close.d self addressed envelope.

                  I look forward to hearing from you. Please call me if you have any questions.

                                                                             Sincerely,


                                                                       ~Q~
                                                                       JOHN HERRERA .   A.


                  T; "RHot Pa-n>rtdn, im<:f~l'trvJ the ahov¢ term~ and conditions -0f my parents' proposed gift
            >1f.i.d fo•d th~(•1 f<:'!:::~)table. While f understand that it is my parents' present intention to
      i-11>\H
      wrilli1ue this plan iudcl1nit~ly~! ;.7'!~~.> ~~ ..:·~·L:;~~·l l:::_: ;·;· ;~; .i>~./ e:~~ ~~::1 Li.ti~__: ;;~;~c=..-:~~~J-.E;.~ . (1 :_ ~l~i:~f
      th1s p Ian,&; any reasolfi. Ifl.rue, l a.~ lrtm ~..uy .nnun~ g••.~'j .~· ~.~~ · ruy ¥.'11.e. ;;._..;.,,.,t~l~ ""
        .            1ur                       •.    • ·• · · '" ·              .,..          . • ~·-•           ·r- ~         .. ,                 • • ..
                                                                                                                                        5:'.l'~!'.~,:·,;· . !:·

      iafu~r    than to the executor or administrator of my estate




                r:-;;::.d:c..; r?<::rDtdn., :.;;:;.;:far.stand the above terms and conditions of my husband's parents'
                  f,
      1-4-.,_:.p,:ose~ ~~plan ari.d  find ·them. ~~~~1=-!4=. \Vl>Jle ! und~rnt~rid thr-tt it is my bn~lxmd'::: p:::.~::::•
      present intentfon to oontiuu!.t' tl.lls phn~ fo<;lt"futltdy,. l ah') tmd•:-:rs~find tfo.';t tfi..::y may ~t ~!lY tiruc
                                                                                                    .
              .
      discont:tnue or aiter ms
                          -l·           · - ..
                                 t' . fmm J.ul auy n.'Jfil\on.                                              .




                                                                             c'3f>~m
                                                                             August_, 2007
                           5613929889                          .Jlj-JN A HERRERA ESQ                          PAGE   01/02
08/15/2007    12:47


                                                    LA.W OFFICES OF
                                  JOHN A. HERRERA, M.Acc.,j.J>., LL.M., CPA
                                          . BOA.RD CERTIFIED TAX ATTORNEY
                                         2501 SOUTH OCEAN BouLEVARO, SUITE 107
                                               BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432
LICENSEDIO                                                                                           VOICE:  (561) 392-4626
PAAC71CE LAW IN                                                                                      FAX:    (561) 392-9889
FLORIDA, CAUFORNiA                                                                                  WATS: (888) 445-3656
&COLORADO                                                                                           E: jherrera@lx.netcom.com




        BY CERTIFIED MAIL. RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

                                                           August 15, 2007

        Eliot Bernstein
        39 Little Avenue
        Red Bluff. CA 96080-3519

        Re:       Advancement of Inheritance
                  Our file number J522-2.0

        Dear Mr. Bernstein:

                I have been retained by your parents to assist them :in their estate planning. You parents
        have asked me to contact you regarding a possible plan to advance you a portion of the
        inheritance that you may ultimately receive upon their deaths.

                  The plan would work .as follows:

                  1.      Yom parents would each month pay the health insu..""1Ilce premiums for you, your
        wife Candice and your three children.

                  2.     In addition, your parents want to make gifts to provide your family with a monthly
        cash :flow. The annual amount of these gifts would be $100,000 per year iess the amount that
        they pay in health insurance premiums for your family. This amount would be distributed evenly
        over the year in monthly distributions by me.

                  3.     The health insurance premiums and lhe monthly payments will reduce dollar-for-
        dollar the amount that you will ultimately inherit when your parents die.

                "\\'bile your parents may decide to alter or discontinue this plan at any time, they wanted
        m.: to make sure that you understand that they will discontinue making the above health
        insurance premiums and th~ monthly paymc::nt::t if you bamss or threaten to sue or litigate wi:th
        anyone in your family at an:y time.

                  Your pa.rents also w.ant to have t."!Je opportunity to visit with their grandchildren at }east

                                      Additional Offices in West Palm Beach & Boca Raton


 08-15-2007 09:45         ELIOT BERNSTEIN 530-529-4110
                                                                                                    A_
                                                                                              ~~~~-P-GE_:_1_ _~
BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

                                             August 15, 2007

Eliot Bernstein
39 Little A venue
Red Bluff, CA 96080-3519

Re:    Advancement of Inheritance
       Our file number 1522-2.0

Dear Mr. Bernstein:

        I have been retained by your parents to assist them in their estate plaiming. You parents
have asked me to contact you regarding a possible plan to advance you a portion of the
inheritance that you may ultimately receive upon their deaths.

       The plan would work as follows:

       1.     Your parents would each month pay the health insurance premiums for you, your
wife Candice and your three children.

        2.      In addition, your parents want to make gifts to provide your family with a monthly
cash flow. The ammal amount of these gifts would be $100,000 per year less the amount that
they pay in health insurance premiums for your family. This amount would be distributed evenly
over the year in monthly distributions.

        3.    The health insurance premiums and the monthly payments will reduce dollar-for-
dollar the amount that you will ultimately inherit when your parents die.

       While your parents may decide to alter or discontinue this plan at any time, they wanted
me to make sure that you understand that they will discontinue making the above health
insurance premiums and the monthly payments if you harass or threaten to sue or litigate with
anyone in your family at any time.




                                                                                                     ~t~f
                                                                                                     JI
Eliot Bernstein
August 15, 2007
Page 2


        Your parents also want to have the opportunity to visit with their grandchildren at least
four times a year. Your parents will either come to California or gladly pay all transportation
costs for your children to come to Florida. Y bu and Oandice are more than welcome to join your
                                             1
children for these family visits.

        My purpose in writing to you is to confirm in advance that your parents' plan is
acceptable to you and to make sure that you understand that the payment of your health insurance
premiums and other distributions will reduce ~ny amounts that you may receive later. If you find
these terms acceptable, please sign and date below and return one copy of this letter to me in the
enclosed self addressed envelope.

       I look forward to hearing from you. Please call me if you have any questions.

                                             Sincerely,



                                             JOHN A. HERRERA



        I, Eliot Bernstein, understand the above terms and conditions of my parents' proposed gift
plan and find them acceptable. While I understand that it is my parents' present intention to
continue this plan indefinitely, I also understand that they may at any time discontinue or alter
this plan for any reason.




                                             ELIOT BERNSTEIN
                                             August __ , 2007
EXHIBIT 24 - WALT SAHM CARRY OVER LOAN
 -
~-·/
                                                                                                         CFN 20080241511
                                                                                                         OR    BK 22723 PG 0691
                                                                                                         RECORDED 06/26/2008 09:06:17
                                                                                                         Palin Beach County, ·Florida
       Prepared by and return to:
                                                                                                         Alff 110, 000. 00
       John ~appeller, Jr.                                                                               Deed Doc 385.00
       Florj~f;'ij_!le & Closing Co.
                                                                                                         Intang 220.00
       350 6'anft~ardens Blvd. Suite 303                                                                 Sharon R. Bock.CLERK & COMPTROLLER
       Boca I\~? F~ 33432
                                                                                                         Pgs 0691 - 694; <4pgsl
       s6t-392>a61~
       File Nurn~JTl.rro8-087Will Call No.: 159
                   ....     )~ . . .   0
                          ~;.,                                   [Space Above This Line For Recording Data}
       TIDS IS t~l\.LLOON MORTGAGE AND THE FINAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT
       OR THE ~.WCIPAL BALANCE DUE UPON MATURITY IS $110,000.00,
       TOGETHEltv(?}VITH ACCRUED INTEREST, IF ANY, AND ALL
       ADV ANCEM:Ep MADE BY THE MORTGAGEE UNDER THE TERMS OF
       THIS MORTGAGE.\C>" .J
                                           'l?
                                                                      MORTGAGE
                                                 ( ?;.,
       This Indenture, Made                this-(.J;ho,
                                                   2008 by and between Bernstein Family Realty, LLC, a Florida limited liability
       company whose address is 950 Vnm~a Corporate Circle, Suite 3010, Boca Raton, FL 33431, hereinafter called the
       Mortgagor, and Walter E. Sahm ~~ricia Sahm, his wife whose address is 8230 SE l 77th Winterthru Loop, The
       Villages, FL 32162, hereinafter callat:ij'.f.'tti,rtgagee:
                                                          - v,-,,)~


                The tenns "Mortgagor" and "Mcrtga~,,S"Will include heirs, personal representatives, successors, legal representatives and assigns,
                and shall denote the singular and/or the~and the masculine and/er the feminine and natural and/or artificial persons, whenever
                and wherever the context so admits or requ{¢"s.)'-!>
                                           .              \~/
       Witnesseth, that the said Mortgagor, for and,ti,ll~nsideration of the aggregate sum named in the promissory note, a copy of
       which is attached hereto and made a part hereo't,-~_e_-ffceipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does grant, bargain and sell to
       the said Mortgagee, his successors and assigns, ii(f~imple, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Palm
       Beach County, Florida, to-wit:                   ~--::;;·;~
                                                                      \.[ \'::.::=..../f\
                                                                                    .- ~



                Lot 68, Block G, BOCA MADERA UNI1'..-~ccording to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 32,
                Pages 59 AND 60, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.

       And the said Mortgagor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of
       all persons whomsoever.

       Provided always, that if said Mortgagor, his successors or assigns, shall pay unto the said Mortgagee, his successors crr
       assigns, _that certain promissory note, of which a true and correct copy is attached, and Mortgagor shall perfonn, comply with
       and abide by each and every stipulation, agreement, condition and covenant of said promissory note and of this mortgage, and
       shall duly pay all taxes, all insurance premiums reasonably requiied, all costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys
       fees that Mortgagee may incur in collecting mone.y secured by this mortgage, and also in enforcing this mortgage by suit or
       otherwise, then this mortgage and the estate hereby created shall cease and be null and void.

       Mortgagor hereby covenants and agrees:

       I.   To pay the principal and interest and other sums of money payable by virtue of said promissory note and this mortgage,
            or either, promptly on the days respectively the same severally come due.

       2.   To keep the buildings now or hereafter on the land insured for fire and extended coverage in a sum at least equal to the
            amount owed on the above described promissory note, and name the Mortgagee as loss payees, and to furnish Mortgagee
            wHb • oopy of •ll o=ffit polici".    [f Mort""°'                          "°"
                                                                    not pmvido Mortga"'' with oopio< of tho pol~wll>g
            Mortgagee as loss payees after 14 days written demand by Mortgagee, then Mortgagee may purchase such ura ·e and

                                                                                                                                    Initials:         __
                                                                                                                                                D ubleTim&&




            Book22723/Page691                                                                                      Page 1 of 4
     shall add any payments made for such policy to the principal balance owed on the mortgage, and such payments shall
     accrue interest at the maximum rate of interest allowed by law. In the event any sum of money becomes payable under
     such policy, Mortgagee, his legal representatives or assigns, shall have the option to receive and apply the same on
     acc~t of the indebtedness hereby secured or to pennit Mortgagor to receive and use it or any.part thereof for repair or
     fS~ent, without hereby waiving or impairing any equity, lien or right under or by virtue of this mortgage. In the
     e:ven_t§:t1oss Mortgagor shall give immediate notice to Mortgagee.
       '\ ;:·' "")
3.   To ~~commit         or suffer no waste, impairment or deterioration of the property, or any part thereof.
        '( rn1.
            \ f ,- y

4.   To perhTtt nq,_Q!ber lien or mortgage to be placed ahead offuis mortgage.
                 \;::i~,
5.   Ylortgagot\snpH provide proof of payment of annual real estate taxes by March 15, for the preceding years taxes. In the
     event that Mo~or does not pay the taxes by such date, the Mortgagee may pay the taxes and the full amount of such
     payment by ~  ~gee shall be added to the principal balance owed on the mortgage, and shall accrue interest at the
     maximum rate ~W~ by law.
                           (.-::::: ..·..;7
6.   The Mortgagee maYi,.~t any time pending a suit upon this mortgage, apply to the court having jurisdiction thereof for the
     appointment of a rec~ and such court shall forthwith appoint a receiver, and such receiver shall have all the broad
     and effective functionWnd powers in anywise entrusted by a court to a receiver, and such appoin1ment shall be made by
     such court as an adrnitte~"¥ty and a matter of absolute right to said Mortgagee. The rents, profits, income, issues, and
     revenues shall be applied'ey~.h receiver according to the lien of this mortgage.
                               i { ,,,")
                                                         r
                                              '.._'=i.\ ,_-,
                                              ·
7.   If any of the sums of money,,du:t;•.11tld owing to Mortgagee under the terms of the promissory note and this mortgage,
     including but not limited to an~y~~e made by Mortgagee for the payment of insurance or taxes, are not paid within 15
     days after the same become due~.fif~~ble, or if each of the stipulations, agreements, conditions and covenants of the
     promissory note and this mortgag\f.....oj>e!th.er, are no( fully performed or complied with the aggregate sum owed on the
     promissory note shall become due 'i'r.iii~ayable forthwith or thereafter at the option of Mortgagee, his successors, legal
                .           .              I ~ ._ J
     representatives, or assigns.           r,:-::~~
                                                               '-!'-''.'./
This mortgage and the note hereby secured sffal~b~construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of Florida.
                                                                      '(     ( :

The p_rincip~I sum seemed hereby, along with ~~t2~~!e.st to_ be paid in acco~dance with the .terms of the note sec~ed .hereby, _
shall unmed1ately become due and payable without~Q}l1cc, if a transfer of title to the prclDlses by sale or othel'Wl.se is made
without the Mortgagee's written consent, while'\.~~rtgage remains a lien thereon, at the option of Mortgagee, his
successors, legal representatives, or assigns.    ~

Executed at Palm Beach County, Florida on the date written above.

Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of:

TIDS IS A BALLOON MORTGAGE AND THE FINAL PRJNCIP AL PAYMENT OR THE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE DUE UPON MATURITY IS $110,000.00, TOGETHER WITH
ACCRUED INTEREST, IF ANY, AND ALL ADVANCEMENTS MADE BY THE
MORTGAGEE UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS MORTGAGE.

                                                                                   BernsteinF    , a Florida limited liability
                                                                                   company


                                                                                   By:~-Tr-~~~~~~-
                                                                                     Simon


Witness Name: ~1i1J\:




Florida Mortgage (Seller) - Page 2                                                                                    DoubleTime<>




     Book22723/Page692                                                                          Page 2 of 4
                                     Printed Name:

                                     My Commission Expires:




Florida Mortgage (Seller) - Page 3




    Book22723f Page693                                        Page 3 of 4   ·1 . ·
                                                                            i-   . .
      ©@~                                      PROMISSORY NOTE
         ~
$110,000.00                                                                                                                June 20, 2008
    ~;~\  ~                                                                                       Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida
           /3>
     \; ;-·/·"'ii
       \//          0
FOR V~... RECEIVED, the undersigned promise to pay to the order of Walter E. Sahm and Patricia Sahm, his wife at
     .. ,,,,.,..-.--
8230 SE    \(yQ) Winterthru Loop, The Villages, FL 32162 or at such other address as may be indicated in vvriting, in the
manner heiefuat'f{'.n::;specified, the principal sum of One Hundred Ten Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($110,000.00) -with
interest from €~te hereof, at the rate of Six and One Half percent (6.5%) per annum on the balance from time to time
remaining unpii:@jl>rhe said principal and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America, on.the
date and in the follq~g manner:
                        \C)             .
          The sum ¥";$7;150.00 representing a payment of interest only shall be due and payable on June 19,
          2009, and b&~ 19, 2010, and on June 19, 2011 at which time all unpaid principal and accrued but
          unpaid interest-Shall be due and payable in full.
                              ,--:$3'
                              \._0 )
                                                                  .
          All payments shaJis.1i'e first applied to late charges, if any, then to the payment of accrued interest, and the
          balance remaining, ~,; shall be applied to the payment of the principal sum.
                                '~s}1                .
          This note may be prephld,'::{n, whole or in part, without penalty, at any time prior to maturity.
                                        y/'\}....,
                                            /-\."(     -..                                                           -
This note with. interest is secured ~chase money mortgage, of even date herewith, the terms. of which are incorporated
herein hy reference, made by the m~~i~rt:ii~t.i:of in favor of the said payee, is given as part of the purchase price of the real
property described in the mortgage, an\1~]:be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of Florida,
                                   .                 ( i     ')
If default be made in the payment of any -~~nt under this note, and if such default is not made good within 15 days, the
entire principal sum and accrued interest s~ once become due and payable without notice at the option of the holder of
this Note. Failure to exercise this option sh;;'JJI :Qot:,_constitute a waiver of the right to exercise the same at a later time for the
                                                     F •,
same default or for any subsequent default. *.iPJ!yment not received within 10 days of the due date shall include a late
charge of 5% of the payment due. In the event ¢t&'iault in the payment of this note, interest shall accrue at the highest rate
pennitted by law, and if the same is placed in the ·~~pf any attorney for collection, the undersigned hereby agree to pay all
costs of collection, including a reasonable attomtyS''feV.r,
                                                                       .//-J
                                                                      ~~~
Makers waive demand, presentment for payment, protest, and notice of nonpayment and dishonor.




                                                                               By:~~~--,~~~~~~~~
                                                                                   Simon Bernstein -Borrower, Manager
                                                                                          (
                                                                               (Corporate Seal)




               The state documentary tax due on this Note has been paid on the Mortgage securing this indebtedness.




                                                                                                                             DoubleTime®




     Book22723/Page694                                                                                    Page 4 of 4
                                                                                                                                           · ·· ·~
                                                                                                       CFN 20080241510
                                                                                                       OR BK 22723 PG 0689
IT.§lared by and return to:
                                                                                                       RECORDED 06/26/2008 09:06:17
John M. Cappeller, Jr.                                                                                 Palm Beach County, Florida
                                                                                                       AlfT 360,000.00
Florida~tle & Closing Co.
                                                                                                       Doc Stamp 2,520.00
350 C~Gardens Blvd. Suite 303                                                                          Sharon R. Bock,CL£RK & COKPTROLLER
    ~~   )
Boca\~a!. ,.,FL 33432                                                                                  Pgs 0689 - 690; <2pgs>
561-3~6
File N~~ flTOS-087
Will Call N~{i}..59
           '0::!_)•
Parcel   Identi~.wNo. 06-42-47-10-02-007-0680
                '~-'    ,,,                               [Space Above This Line For Recording Dataj

                   \(~
                       \:(7~~..
                        '~·· '/,'-::>                       Warranty Deed
                         '(?"'                          (STATUTORY FORM - SECTION 689.02, F.S.)

                               (~
                                ~            .11-- ..
This Indenture made this1~-tt' 'day of June, 2008 between Walter E. Sahm and Patricia Sahm, his wife whose post
office address is 8230 SE 11.~interthur Loop, The Villages, FL 32162 of the County of Marion, State of Florida,
grantor*, and Bernstein Famit&,~{1~!_!, LLC, a Florida limited liability company whose post office address is 950
Peninsula Corporate Circle, s:i~, Boca Raton, FL 33431 of the County of Palm Beach, State of Florida, grantee*,
                                <?."· 0
                                       -
                                 v!)--::c;.
Witnesseth that said grantor, for ahd' Jb Mnsideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/I 00 DOLLARS ($ I0.00) and other
good and valuable considerations to saM>~tor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,
has granted, bargained, and sold to the ~~ee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land,
situate, lying and being in Palm Beach Co~lorida, to-wit:
                                                          ...                 ·
                                                                , . . . :::q\
                                                                lf~s-: ..
          Lot 68, Block G, BOCA MADERA Uf9:1'!))2, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 32,
          Pages 59 AND 60, of the Public Rccord~~~lm Beach County, Florida.
                                                                     ~/f' ) ;                                                       .
                                                                      'J-'\:::/'f\
                                                                         ,~._/£.f\
          Subject to restrictions, reservations an~ments of record and taxes for the year 2008 and
          thereafter


and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons
whomsoever.


                                        ~   "Grantor" and "Grantee" are used for singular or plural, as context requires.




                                                                                                                                        DoubleTimex>




     Book22723/Page689                                                                                                Page 1 of 2                      ;,;-   '
In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written.



                                                          'f.µ/rd};;J [ ;d~ (Soa~
                                                             Walter E. Sahm




                        /"';.
                       ,.

                    \C:~
State of Florida S\.~
County of      ,  ) -c;

The foregoing    instrum~t(,~acknowledged  before me this J1_               ne 200 by Walter E. Sahm and Patricia Sahm,
who LJ are personally kno~r.?£)~X] have produced a driver's license       t ti tion.
                                  \.~~
                                    ( -,~))
[Notary Seal]



                                                              My Commission Expires:




 Warranty Deed (Statutory Form} - Page 2                                                                     OoubleTime<>




     Book22723/Page690                                                                  Page 2 of 2
                                                                                                                            ·~
                                                                  11111111111111~1111111
                                                                CFN 20120143493
                                                                OR BK 25132 PG 1051
                                                                RECORDED 0411212012 09:21:00
                                                                Palm Beach County, Florida
 Prepared by and return to:                                     Sharon R. Bock,Cl.ERK & CO"PTROLLER
                                                                Pgs 1051 - 1054t <4pgs>
J~M. Cappelkr, Jr.
   '"'
\ca~ Law
 ,/" lier
 ~~. . Cappeller, Jr.
 3~°Q-'.<~1~ino Gardens Blvd., Suite 303
 BodlRaton~             FL 33432
               .. u
            )~ -
       'I-''/;
        ,,,,,(0,
        '\~)~!.,-..,.



               ~ ""
               \'1/~
                        \ l$ENDMENT TO MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE
                         '-'=-
                                  ....._q ,
                                 ( r-"-'1
                                 '''?'
        This AM~NB~ENT TO MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE (this
 "Amendment'') is etl~~into effective the _LS_ day of February, 2012, among BERNSTEIN
 FAMILY REALTY,\.<£~, a Florida limited liability company, having an address at 950
 Peninsula Corporate Ci(~ ~uite 3010, Boca Raton, FL 33487 (the "Mortgagor"), and
 WALTER E. SAHM an~'j'J.UCIA SAHM, having an address at 8230 SE 177m Winterthru
 Loop, The Villages, FL 32~ -0~Mortgagee").
                          "...,.,-- /
                             v;;Q)
                                 (~~~..._, WITNESSETH
                                              1(//
                                   \..s'/
           WHEREAS, Mortgagee graµt~ Mortgagor a purchase money mortgage in the amount of
 $ l l 0,000.00, evidenced by that ce~~romissory Note dated June 20, 2008, (the "Promissory
 Note"),· and                              __
                                          \(,,,~,~   /,.,,.·)


                                                 //-)',

        WHEREAS, the Promissory                  ~~1~~ecured,
                                                 inter alia, by that certain Mortgage dated
 June 20, 2008 from Mortgagor in fav~hil'Mortgagee, recorded on June 26, 2008 in Official
 Records Book 22723, Page 691, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida (the
 "Mortgage"); and

        WHEREAS, Mortgagor has asked Mortgagee to extend the term of the Mortgage and the
 Promissory Note (the "Amendment"); and

       WHEREAS, to document the Amendment, Mortgagor is executing and delivering to
 Mortgagee this Amendment to Mortgage and Promissory Note;



 DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAXES AND L"iTANGIBLE TAXES ON THE ORIGINAL
 INDEBTEDNESS OF $110,000.00 WERE PAID IN FULL UPON THE RECORDING OF
 THE MORTGAGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 20, 2008 AND
 RECORDED ON JUNE 26, 2008 IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 22723 PAGE 691, IN
 THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH, FLORIDA.




 Book25132/Page1051                                                     Page 1 of 4
          NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and other valuable
,___c~deration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
 \Jre_~~ agree as follows:
  o--;_,.--,j
  \, ,--;,·     0
   \:>;'~J .       Amendment to Mortgage and Promissory Note. Effective June 19, 2011, the
 parfaj;fliereto amend the Mortgage and Promissory Note to provide that by agreement the date
 on whi$~1f principaJ is due and payabJe js hereby extended to June 19, 2014. Annual payments
 of inter~~.nly at the rate of 3.5% per annum shall continue to be due on the anniversary date of
 the Protrlts~·Note until June 19, 2014 when all unpaid principal and accrued interest shall be
             so ,
             ,._.;
 due and pa 7 __ in full.
                     ll ...-:-·.\
                       ((    ,/}
         2.    ":::C-diifirmation and Ratification. Mortgagor hereby ratifies and confirms all its
 obligations set'-'f~ in the Mortgage and Promissory Note. Mortgagor hereby certifies to
 Mortgagee that rff;.eient of default has occurred under such documents, nor any event which,
 with the giving of ~ce or the passage of time or both, would constitute such an event of
 default. Mortgagor h~ represents and warrants to Mortgagee that Mortgagor has no defense
 or offsets against the~~tklent of any amounts due, or the perfonnance of any obligations
 required by, the Loan D~~~~;,

                3.          MiscellaneoBY:::\(.)
                                         v~~-s~
                 (a)    Except ~~s;ssly amended herein, the Mortgage and Promissory Note
 remain in full force and effect. ty--;'.-/
                                    ,,
                                       (f::;\
                 (b)    This Amend~iway be executed in multiple counterparts each of which,
 when taken together, shall constitute 6tii.~d the same instrument.
                                                     ._/"('-")'" ';
                                                     \.['..~....·"/\.
                (c)    In the event                of a~sistency
                                                        between the terms contained herein, and
 the provisions of Mortgage and Promissory Note, the terms of this Amendment shall govern.

                (d)     The individual executing this document hereby certifies that he has
 authority to engage in and execute this Amendment to Mortgage and Promissory Note.



                                    SEE EXECUTION BLOCK ON NEXT PAGE




                                                              2




 Book25132/Page1052                                                        Page 2 of 4
            IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the
 d~nd year first above written .

 ,._ ~,,.....,\
.\p1gifj9. sealed and del'1vered
 i~     presence of:
  \</,l'- 0
    v ·>'
 wI~SES:                                                       MORTGAGOR:
             -:-. 0
            :%
              W>
        ~<I;:!){..
          '·!
                                                                         FAMILY REALTY, LLC,
                                                                      ited liability compan
               \;~

 ~~
                      ((   i~




 PrifitNaIDe==              (r..::
                            '\.?'
                                     J   BA.K. k.s

  (:;;, · D~l
 Print Name: Shar; ' ·




          The foregoing instrument             ~~knowledged
                                                  before me this t          '5~day
                                                                              of February,
 2012, by Simon Bernstein, as Man~g~J..f Bernstein Family Realty, LLC, a Florida limited
 liability company. He L i s person~~wn to me or
 as identification.

            (Seal)
                                   ,~ /)"
                                                     ~-~          '
                                                           has J!roduced a driver's license




                                                           3




 Book25132/Page1053                                                         Page 3 of 4
                                                                    MORTGAGEE:




                                                                    Walter E. Sahm"




                      (,-;:.:;_,
                      \   ,:   {~
STATE OF FLORID~;~)1 ,
COUNTY OF SUMPTF!R~/"
                                    ~-~ o

~     The foregoing                 in~J~~!;lt
                                was acknowledged before me this                day of                             j \
UVl.tlh                 , \~)\by Walter E. Sahm and Patricia Sahm. They __ are
personally known to me or  ~·.~~~produced drive 's licenses as identification.
                                                 /y                                            dJ'.              ,,
                                                                                               ~
                                            \r                            I

                                            v
      (Seal)                                     er~"               --'-"'----"t---=.---L._....::.__/_   _   _   _ __ __



                                                         / /"
                                                      (':={~~

                       .
               ANGELA MLA'hllEHCE
            Notary Publk:. Slate of Florida
              Commission#DD977258
           My comm. expires April 3, 2014




                                                                4



Book25132/Page1054                                                                                   Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 25- PAMELA EMAIL'S REGARDING LOST HERITAGE
                      POLICY
Eliot Bernstein

From:                              Pam Simon <psimon@stpcorp.com>
Sent:                              Friday, February 8, 2013 7:41 PM
To:                                Eliot Bernstein
Cc:                                Ted Bernstein; Lisa Sue Friedstein; Jill lantoni; Jill M. lantoni; Robert L. Spallina, Esq . -
                                   Attorney at Law @ Tescher & Spallina, P.A.; Christine P. Yates - Director@ Tripp Scott;
                                   Irina Roach
Subject:                           Re: Heritage Policy



Yad - bad news - we don't have copies of the policy - dad probably took it when he emptied his office I probably the
trust too! The carrier seems to be the on ly one with a copy. As to the other items, we should do a call cause the premise
is off. Have a good weekend.
Pam

On Feb 8, 2013, at 5:48 PM, "Eliot Bernstein" <iviewit@gmail.com> wrote:
EXHIBIT 26 - PETITIONER LETTER EXCHANGE WITH TS REGARDING
                           IVIEWIT




                          ./ lif;ff.<0~/··~ .
                           !''          ~




                                 af;J
From: Eliot Ivan Bernst ein [mai lto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:17 AM
To: Robert L. Spallina, Esq.~ Attorney at Law @ Tescher & Spallina, P.A. (rspallina@tescherspallina.com )
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (caroline@cprogers.com); Michele M.        Mulrooney~    Partner@
Venable LLP (mmulrooney@Venable.com); Marc R. Garber, Esquire@ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Marc R.
Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C. (marcrgarber@verizon.net); Andrew Dietz@ Rock-I t Cargo USA,
Inc. (andyd@rockitcargo.com)

Subject: Si's lviewit Stock and Patent Interests

Robert~   just wanted to check if my father had listed as an asset in his estate his shares in the lviewit
companies and his patent interests. My father was the origina l seed investor before Huizenga and
started the lviewit compan ies with me formed around my inventions and Intellectual Properties. It is
well documented in bank and other documents his interests, which companies were all initially 30%
owned by Si and 70% by me. After mu lt iple other investors of cou rse we were diluted down and I am
working that out pending state, federal and international investigations as some of the original
shareholders may be excluded for their crimes and thus the number may fluctuate from its last pricing
during a Wachovia Private Placement. I spoke to my father and it was his wishes that the stock be part
of his estate for his kids and grandchildren in whatever way he chose to distribute his other assets . I
wou ld like to make sure that his wishes are fulfilled and so please advise as to how to incorporate the
asset if it was not initially listed. Currently the assets are worth nothing, the patents are suspended
pending federal investigations due to the extenuating circumstances surrounding the patents but at
some near future time they may have considerable asset value. The patents are also at the center of an
ongoing RICO action in the Federal Courts and considerable monies may be recovered via those efforts
as well, of which of course, Si's interests must be also be considered in his estate.

Also, please reply with a time and day that we are meeting and if you could please send any documents
to the attorneys and others I mentioned in my prior email correspondences copied below prior to the
meeting time this wou ld be of great service.

Thank   you~   Eliot




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:26 AM
To: Robert L. Spallina,   Esq . ~   Attorney at Law@ Tescher & Spallina, P.A.(rspallina@tescherspallina.com)
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (caroline@cprogers.com); Michele M.        Mulrooney~    Partner@
Venable LLP (mmulrooney@Venable.com); Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.
(marcrgarber@verizon.net); Marc R. Garber, Esquire @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Andrew Dietz@ Rock-It
Cargo USA, Inc. (andyd@rockitcargo.com)

Subject: Si's lviewit stock and patent interests

Robert, you can also check with Gerald Lewin regarding the interests Si held in the companies and
patents as he was the accountant for lviewit and is also an lviewit shareholder with several members of
his family. Again, thank you so much for your efforts on my families' behalf. Eliot

I VIEW IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision

Eliot J. Bernstein
Inventor




From: Pam Simon [mai lto :psimon@stpcorp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:19 AM
To: Eliot Ivan Bernstein

Subject: Re: Si's lviewit stocks and patent interests

Yad- remember that every time you talk or send stuff to spallina he is billing the estate to check into
which adds up quickly - we are heading to chi town - talk to u soon - think the call is being set up for wed
or thurs afternoon xoxo

On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:45 AM, "Eliot Ivan Bernstein" <iviewit@ iviewit.tv> wrote:

Please take note of this.

From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mai lto :iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:17 AM
To: Robert L. Spallina,   Esq.~   Attorney at Law @ Tescher & Spallina, P.A. (rspallina@tescherspallina.com)

Subject: Si's lviewit Stock and Patent Interests




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:49 AM
To: 'Pam Simon'
Cc: Theodore S. Bernstein (TBernstein@lifeinsuranceconcepts.com); Lisa S. Friedstein
(Lisa@friedsteins.com); Jill M. lantoni (lantoni_jill@ne.bah.com); Jill M. lantoni (jilliantoni@gmail.com)

Subject: RE: Si's lviewit stocks and patent interests

Pee, will keep that in mind and perhaps we should bill out time to the individual estates on time used by
each party with attorneys, would that suffice your concerns? Would you like that entering the lviewit
stock and patent interests into the estate be billed to my children, if so, please advise. Eliot




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:54 AM
To: Robert L. Spallina,   Esq.~   Attorney at Law @ Tescher & Spallina, P.A. (rspallina@tescherspallina.com)
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (caroline@cprogers.com); Michele M.        Mulrooney~      Partner@
Venable LLP (mmulrooney@Venable.com); Marc R. Garber, Esquire @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Marc R.
Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C. (marcrgarber@verizon.net); Andrew Dietz@ Rock-It Cargo USA,
Inc. (andyd@rockitcargo.com)

Subject: Si's lviewit Stock and Patent Interests

Robert -Any news on a meeting time and any comment on the other issues below including the lviewit
stocks and patent interests? My sister felt there was a meeting already arranged but did not know the
time. Let me know.




From: Robert Spallina [mailto:rspallina@tescherspallina.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:03 AM
To: Eliot Ivan Bernstein
Cc: Ted Bernstein

Subject: Re: Si's lviewit Stock and Patent Interests

Eliot - I left you a message yesterday. Ted is supposed to arrange a time for us to meet. Please reach out
to him. My understanding is that your sisters have all gone back to Chicago. With regard to the below
interests your father never mentioned them once as an asset of his estate. I will circle back with Jerry
Lewin on this.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:52 AM
To: 'Robert Spallina'
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (caroline@cprogers.com); Michele M.      Mulrooney~    Partner@
Venable LLP (mmulrooney@Venable.com); Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.
(marcrgarber@verizon.net); Marc R. Garber, Esquire @ Fl aster Greenberg P.C.; Andrew Dietz@ Rock-It
Cargo USA, Inc. (andyd@rockitcargo.com)

Subj ect: RE: Si's lviewit Stock and Patent Interests

Robert, spoke with Ted he said either 3pm at your office or we could call in. Are there call in numbers if
I cannot make in person to your offices? Also, can you send over any documents to me and my listed
trustees that we can review prior? I would like if possible any trust docs for both my father and mother
that are relevant and any other documents you feel that we should possess, as you know I have never
seen any of the documents to this point. Let me know what Jerry Lewin says in regards to the lviewit
stocks and patent interests. Thanks, Eliot




From: Robert Spallina [mailto:rspallina@tescherspallina.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:32 AM
To: Eliot Ivan Bernstein
Cc: Ted Bernstein; Donald Tescher

Subject: RE: Si's lviewit Stock and Patent Interests

Eliot - my understanding is that you will be here at 3. Please confirm as I would like to sit and speak
with you as you are in town. Additionally, I intend on sending out call in information for a 3:30 call with
your sisters.

With regard to your document request, we are not sending out any documents at this time. Don and I
are the named fiduciaries under your father's documents and will provide the relevant documents when
we have arr the facts and information. Having said that, and consistent with our telephone conference
with your siblings earlier this year and my discussion with you last week, your father directed that the
assets of his estate and the remainder of your mother's estate pass to the grandchildren in equal shares,
so there should be no surprises to anyone .

Please advise your availability at 3:00.

Thank you
Robert L. Spallina, Esq.
TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A.




From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:51 AM
To: 'Robert Spallina'
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (caroline@cprogers.com); Michele M.       Mulrooney~    Partner@
Venable LLP (mmulrooney@Venab le.com); Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.
{marcrgarber@verizon.net); Marc R. Garber, Esquire @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Andrew Dietz@ Rock-It
Cargo USA, Inc. (andyd@rockitcargo.com)

Subject: RE: Si's lviewit Stock and Patent Interests

Ok, will be there at 3 just needed to find someone to get the kids off to their after school stuff.
understand what transpired at the last teleconference I am just short of the underlying documents that
where part of the new and old transactions, so at you're soonest convenience and when you have all the
facts it would be great that you pass them to me and my named trustees. Have you shared these
documents with anyone at this point?     Thanks~   Eliot




                                                                                                           1f
EXHIBIT 27 - LETTER FROM ELIOT TO SPALLINA RE IVIEWIT'S
          RELATION TO PROSKAUER AND LEWIN
Eliot Ivan Bernstein

From:                          Eliot Ivan Bernstein <iviewit@iviewit.tv>
Sent:                          Friday, October 5, 2012 10:45 AM
To:                            Robert L. Spallina, Esq. ~ Attorney at Law@ Tescher & Spallina, P.A.
                               (rs pa llina@tescherspa Iii na.com); 'dtescher@tescherspal Ii na.com'
Cc:                            Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (caro/ine@cprogers.com); Michele M. Mulrooney~
                               Partner@ Venable LLP (mmulrooney@Venable.com); Marc R. Garber Esq.@ Flaster
                               Greenberg P.C. (marcrgarber@verizon.net); Marc R. Garber, Esquire @ Flaster
                               Greenberg P.C.; Andrew Dietz@ Rock-It Cargo USA, Inc. (andyd@rockitcargo .com)
Subject:                       Per your request, information regarding lviewit and Si's ownership for inclusion into
                               estate assets.
Attachments:                   Eliot I Bernstein.vcf; cap tables for companies.pdf

Tracking:                      Recipient                                           Read

                               Robert L. Spallina, Esq. - Attorney at Law@ Tescher & Read: 10/5/2012 11:19 AM
                               Spallina, P.A. (rspallina@tescherspallina.com)

                               'dtescher@tescherspallina.com'

                               Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire
                               (caroline@cprogers.com)

                               Michele M. Mulrooney - Partner @ Venable LLP
                               (mmulrooney@Venable.com)

                               Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.
                               (marcrgarber@verizon.net)

                               Marc R. Garber, Esquire@ Flaster Greenberg P.C.

                               Andrew Dietz @ Rock-It Cargo USA, Inc.
                               (andyd@rockitcargo.com)




Robert,

Pleasure speaking yesterday and I hope this info gives some background to the lviewit stock of my father's you
were looking for, much of these links were done as the technologies and companies and IP was born and Si
was an initial seed investor with Huizenga and Si owned 30% of the companies and the IP for his
investments. I am not sure how anyone can claim they never hea rd of lviewit and did not know it was an asset
of Si's but this should jog some memories and Lewin and Proskauer are also initial investors and counsel. Also
attached in Adobe PDF is Cap Tables done by Proskauer/Lewin initial ly for the shares. I have attached below a
Conflict of Interest Disclosure regarding the lviewit matters below for your review in handling these matters.

Simon Video on lviewit

http://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=L6D luTbTIZo

Lewin Video on lviewit

http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjtW7DyQlqY

Wachovia Private Placement -
                                                                1
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Wachovia%20Private%20Placement%20Memorandum%20Bookmarked.pdf

Arthur Andersen Audit Letter -

http: I/iviewit. tv/CompanyDocs/2000%2010%2009%20ARTHUR%20ANDERSEN%20LETTER%20REGARD
ING%20PROOF%200F%20HOLDINGS%200WNING%20TECH.pdf

Simon Bernstein Statement Regarding Iviewit Events

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/SHAREHOLDER%20STATEMENTS%20BOOKMARKED.pdf

Simon Bernstein Iviewit Deposition, Lewin Deposition and Christopher Wheeler Depositions

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Depositions%20BOOKMARKED%20SEARCHABLE%20with%20hyperlink%
20comments.pdf

Shareholder Letter with Simon Stock Holdings Listed at time starting on Page 153

http: I/iviewit. tv/Company Docs/2004 %2004 %2021 %20Director%200ffi cer%20 Advisory%20Board%20and%2
0Professionals%20.pdf

List oflviewit Companies Si holds shares in

    1.    Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
    2.    Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL (yes, two identically named)
    3.    Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - FL
    4.    Iviewit Technologies, Inc. - DL
    5.    Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
    6.    Uview.com, Inc. - DL
    7.    Iviewit.com, Inc. - FL
    8.    Iviewit.com, Inc. - DL
    9.    I.C., Inc. - FL
    10.   Iviewit.com LLC - DL
    11.   Iviewit LLC - DL
    12.   Iviewit Corporation - FL
    13.   Iviewit, Inc. - FL
    14.   Iviewit, Inc. - DL
    15.   Iviewit Corporation

List of IP Si is partial owner of

                  United States Patents

              1. 09/630,939

                  System & Method for Providing an Enhanced Digital Image File

                  SUSPENDED BY COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

                  l 7-Feb-04

              2. 09/630,939
                                                             2
   System & Method for Providing an Enhanced Digital Image File

   SUSPENDED BY COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

   l 7-Feb-04

3. 09/630,939

   System & Method for Providing an Enhanced Digital Image File

   SUSPENDED BY COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

   l 7-Feb-04

4. 09/522,721

   Apparatus & Method for Producing Enhanced Digital Images

   PENDING SUSPENSION FILED

   26-Feb-04

5. 09/587,734

   System & Method for Providing an Enhanced Digital Video File

   SUSPENDED BY COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

   26-Feb-04

6. 09/587,734

   System & Method for Providing an Enhanced Digital Video File

   SUSPENDED BY COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

   26-Feb-04

7. 09/587,026

   System & Method for Playing a Digital Video File

   SUSPENDED BY COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

   26-Feb-04

8. 09/587,730

   System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced Digital Video File

   SUSPENDED BY COM.MISSIONER OF PATENTS
                                         3
      26-Feb-04

   9. 60/223,344

      Zoom & Pan Using a Digital Camera

   10. 60/233,341

      Zoom & Pan Imaging Design Tool

   11. 60,169,559

      Apparatus and Method for Producing Enhanced Video Images and/or Video Files

   12. 60/155,404

      Apparatus & Method for Producing Enhanced Video Images and/or Video Files

   13. 60/149,737

      Apparatus and Method for Producing Enhanced Digital Images and/or Digital Video Files

   14. 60/146,726

      Apparatus & Method for Producing Enhanced Digital Images

   15. 60/141,440

      Apparatus & Method for Providing and/or transmitting Video Data and/or Information in a
      Communication Network

   16. 60/137,921

      Apparatus & Method for Playing Video Files Across the Internet

   17. 60/137,297

      Apparatus & Method for Producing Enhanced Video Images

   18. 60/125,824

      Apparatus & Method for Producing Enhanced Digital Images

Foreign Patents

   1. PCT/US00/21211

      System & Method for Providing an Enhanced

      Digital Image File

                                             4
2. PCT/US00/15602

   System & Method for Video Playback Over a Network

3. PCT/US00/15406

   System & Method for Playing a Digital Video File

   15406 Part 1 Attachment

   15406 Part 2 Attachment

   15406 Part 3 Attachment

4. PCT US00/15408

   System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced Digital Video File

5. PCTIUS00/15405

   System & Method for Providing an Enhanced Digital Video File

6. PCT US00/07772

   Apparatus & Method for Producing Enhanced Digital Images

7. EPO 00938126 .0

   System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced Digital Video File

8. EPO 00944619.6

   System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced Digital Video File

9. EPO 00955352.0

   System & Method for Providing an Enhanced Digital Image File

10. Japan 2001 502364

   System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced Digital Video File

11. Japan 2001 502362

   System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced Digital Video File

12. Japan 2001 514379

   System & Method for Providing an Enhanced Digital Image File

13. Korea PCT TJSOO 1540&
                                         5
   Trademarks

1. 75/725,802

   THE CLICK HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

2. 75/725,805

   IVIEWIT "YOUR THIRD EYE TO THE WORLD" June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

3. 75/725,806

   IVIEWIT "YOUR THIRD EYE TO THE WORLD" June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

4. 75/725,807

   IVIEWIT 'YOUR THIRD EYE TO THE WORLD" (THIS MARK IS :MISSING PROPER
   QUOTES June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

5. 75/725,808

   IVIEWIT "YOUR THIRD EYE TO THE WORLD June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

6. 75/725,809

   IVIEWIT "YOUR THIRD EYE TO THE WORLD June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

7. 75/725,810

   IVIEWIT "YOUR THIRD EYE TO THE WORLD June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

8. 75/725,816

   IVIEWIT. COM June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

9. 75/725,816

   IVIEWIT June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

10. 75/725,817

   IVIEWIT.COM June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

11. 75/725 ,817

   IVIEWIT June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

12. 75/725,818

   IVIEWIT.COM June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

                                       6
13 . 75/725 ,819

   THE CLICK HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

14. 75/725,819

   IVIEWIT.COM June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

15. 75/725,820

   IVIEWIT.COM June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

16. 75/725,821

   IVIEWIT June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

17. 75/725,821

   THE CLICK HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

18. 75/725,822

   IVIEWIT June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

19. 75/725,823

   IVIEWIT June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

20. 75/725,823

   THE CLICK HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD June 8, 1999 FILED July 27, 2004

21. 76/037,700

   IVIEWIT. COM May 1, 2000 FILED July 27, 2004

22. 76/037,701

   A SITE FOR SORE EYES May 1, 2000 FILED July 27, 2004

23. 76/037,702

   A SITE FOR SORE EYES May 1, 2000 FILED July 27, 2004

24. 76/037,703

   IVIEWIT May 1, 2000 FILED July 27, 2004

25. 76/037,843

   I'v'IEWIT LOGO May 1, 2000 FILED July 27, 2004
                                       7
             26. 76/037,844

                  May 1, 2000 FILED July 27, 2004

Iviewit Amended FEDERAL RICO & ANTITRUST LAWSUIT Si has interests in all litigations for RICO and
Antitrust over next many years of IP life and times, the suit is docketed for 12 Counts at 1 Trillion Each, the
case is ongoing with others being filed shortly and this one has been legally related by Federal Judge Shira
Scheindlin to a NY Supreme Court Disciplinary Department Attorney Whistleblower Lawsuit.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080
509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RIC0%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

Robert, please have you and your partner Don review the COI belciw in handling the Iviewit shares for my
father and mother's estate.

Best~   Eliot Bernstein


                            CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COi) DISCLOSURE FORM




                                           "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate"
                                                 whom fail to heed this form.

THIS COi MUST BE SIGNED AND RETURNED PRIOR TO ANY ACTION
                 BY YOU IN THESE MATTERS
         Please accept and return signed, the following Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form (COI) before continuing further with
adjudication, review or investigation of the attached MOTION to the United States Second Circuit Court, titled,
         MOTION TO:
         AFTER 10 DAYS, IF THIS FORM HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED OR SUBSEQUENTLY TURNED OVER TO
         A NON CONFLICTED PARTY, YOUR FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL AND
         CIVIL CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU FOR AIDING AND ABETTING A RICO CRIMINAL
         ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND MORE, AS NOTED HEREIN.
          The Conflict oflnterest Disclosure Fonn is designed to ensure that the review and any determination from such review of the
enclosed materials should not be biased by any conflicting financial interest or any other conflicting interest by those reviewers
responsible for the handling of this confidential information. Whereby any conflict with any of the main alleged perpetrators of the
alleged crimes referenced in these matters herein, or any other perpetrators not known at this time, must be fully disclosed in writing
and returned by anyone reviewing these matters prior to making ANY deternunation.
          Disclosure forms with "Yes" answers, by any party, to any of the following questions, are demanded not to open the
remainder of the docu..'Ilents or opine in any manner, until the signed COI is reviewed and approved by the Iviewit companies and
Eliot I. Bernstein. If you feel that a Conflict of Interest exists that cannot be eliminated through conflict resolution with the Iviewit
                                                                    8
Companies or Eliot Bernstein, instantly forward the matters to the next available reviewer that is free of conflict that can sign and
complete the requisite disclosure. Please identify conflicts that you have, in writing, upon terminating your involvement in the matters
to the address listed at the end of this disclosure form for Iviewit companies or Eliot I. Bernstein. As many of these alleged
perpetrators are large law firms, lawyers, members of various state and federal courts, officers of federal , state and local law
enforcement and regulatory agencies, careful review and disclosure of any conflict with those named herein is pertinent in your
continued handling of these matters objectively.
          These matters already involve claims of, including but not limited to, Conflicts of Interest, Violations of Public Offices,
W'hitewashing of Official Complaints in the Supreme Courts of New York, Florida, Virginia and elsewhere, Threatening a Federal
Witness in a "legally related" Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit, Document Destruction and Alteration, Obstructions of Justice, RICO,
ATTEMPTED MURDER and much more. The need for prescreening for conflict is essential to the administration of due process in
these matters and necessary to avoid charges of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and more, against you. US Federal District Court
Judge, Shira A Scheindlin, legally related the matters to a New York Supreme Court Attorney Whistle blower Lawsuit of Christine C.
Anderson, Esq. who alleges similar claims of public office corruption against Supreme Court of New York Officials, US Attorneys,
NY District Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys. Therefore, this Conflict Check is a formal request for full disclosure of any
conflict on your part, such request conforming with all applicable state and federal laws, public office rules and regulations, attorney
conduct codes and judicial canons or other international law and treatises requiring disclosure of conflicts and disqualification from
these matters where conflict precludes involvement.
          Failure to comply with all applicable conflict disclosure rules, public office rules and regulations, and, state, federal and
international laws, prior to continued action on your part, shall constitute cause for the filing of criminal and civil complaints against
you for any decisions or actions you make prior to a signed Conflict Of Interest Disclosure Form. Charges will be filed against you
for failure to comply. Complaints will be filed with all appropriate authorities, including but not limited to, the appropriate Federal,
State, Local and International Law Enforcement Agencies, Public Integrity Officials, Judicial Conduct Officials, State and Federal Bar
Associations, Disciplinary Departments and any/all other appropriate agencies.
           I.       Do you, your spouse and your dependents, in the aggregate, have any direct or indirect relations, relationships or
   interest(s) in any entity, or any of the parties listed in EXHIBIT I of this document, or any of the named Defendants in these matters
   contained at the URL, http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Appendix%20A/index.htrn#proskauer? Please review the online index in
   entirety prior to answering, as there are several thousand persons and entities.
  - - NO             - -YES
  Please describe in detail any relations, relationships, interests and conflicts, on a separate and attached sheet, fully disclosing
  all information. If the answer is Yes, please describe the relations, relationships, interests and conflicts, and, affirm whether
  such conflicts or interests present a conflict of interest that precludes fair review of the matters contained herein without
  undue bias or prejudice of any kind.
         II.        Do you, your spouse and your dependents, in the aggregate, have any direct or indirect relations, relationships or
  interest(s), in any entity, or any direct or indirect relations, relationships or interest(s), to ANY other known, or unknown person, or
  known or unknown entity, not named herein, which will cause your review of the materials you are charged with investigating to be
  biased by any conflicting past, present, or future financial interest(s) or any other interest(s)?
  - -NO             - -YES
  Please describe in detail any relations, relationships, interests and conflicts, on a separate and attached sheet, fully disclosing
  all information. If the answer is Yes, please describe the relations, relationships and interests, and, aftirm whether such
  conflicts or interests present a conflict of interest that precludes fair review of the matters contained herein without undue
  bias or prejudice of any kind.
        ill.      Do you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, receive salary or other remuneration or financial
  considerations from any person or entity related in any way to the parties defined in Question I, including but not limited to,
  campaign contributions whether direct, "in kind" or of any type at all?
  - -NO            - -YES
  Please describe in detail any interests or conflicts, on a separate and attached sheet, fully disclosing all information
  regarding the conflicts or considerations. If the answer is Yes, please describe the relations, relationships and I or interests,
  and, affirm whether such conflicts or interests present a conflict of interest that precludes fair review of the matters
  contained herein without undue bias or prejudice of any kind.
        IV.       Have you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, had any prior communication(s), including but not
  limited to, phone, facsimile , e-mail, mail, verbal, etc., with any person related to the proceedings of Iviewit, Eliot Ivan Bernstein or
  the related matters in anyway and parties in Question I?
         NO               YES

  Please describe in detail any identified communication(s) on a separate and attached sheet fully disclosing all information
  regarding the communication(s). If the answer is Yes, please describe the communication(s) in detail, including but not
  limited to, who was present, what type of communication, the date and time, length, what was discussed, please affirm


                                                                     9




                                                                                                                                        11
  whether such communication(s) present a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue bias or
  prejudice of any kind.

         V.        I have run a thorough and exhaustive Conflict oflnterest check, conforming to any/all, state, federal and local laws,
  public office rules and regulations, and, any professional association rules and regulations, regarding disclosure of any/all
  conflicts. I have verified that my spouse, my dependents, and I, in the aggregate, have no conflicts with any parties or entities to the
  matters referenced herein. I understand that any undisclosed conflicts, relations, relationshi19s and interests, will result in criminal
  and civil charges filed against me both personally and professionally.
        NO               YES

        VI.        I have notified all parties with any liabilities regarding my continued actions in these matters, including state
  agencies, shareholders, bondholders, auditors and insurance concerns or any other person with liability that may result from my
  actions in these matters as required by any laws, regulations and public office rules I am bmmd by.
        NO               YES



   RELEVANT SECTIONS OF JUDICIAL CANNONS, ATTORNEY CONDUCT CODES AND LAW
                                    Conflict of futerest Laws & Regulations
Conflict of interest indicates a situation where a private interest may influence a public decision. Conflict
of Interest Laws are Laws and designed to prevent Conflicts of Inte1·est that deny fair and impartial due
process and procedure thereby Obstructing Justice in State and Federal, Civil and Criminal Proceedings.
These Laws may contain provisions related to financial or asset disclosure, exploitation of one's official
position and privileges, improper relationships, regulation of campaign practices, etc. The Relevant
Sections of Attorney Conduct Codes, Judicial Cannons, Public Office Rules & Regulations and State &
Federal Law listed herein are merely a benchmark guide and other state, federal and international laws,
rules and regulations may be applicable to your particular circumstances in reviewing or acting in these
matters. For a more complete list of applicable sections of law relating to these matters, please visit the
URL,
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/index.htm# Tocl 07852933 ,
fully incorporated by reference in entirety herein.
New York State Consolidated Laws Penal

AR TICLE 200 BRIBERY INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND RELATED OFFENSES
S 200 .03 Bribery in the second degree
S 200.04 Bribery in the first degree
S 200.05 Bribery; defense
S 200.10 Bribe receiving in the third degree
S 200 .11 Bribe receiving in the second degree
S 200.12 Bribe receiving in the first degree
S 200.15 Bribe receiving; no defense
S 200.20 Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree
S 200.22 Rewarding official misconduct in the first degree S 200.25 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree
S 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree
S 200.30 Giving unlawful gratuities
S 200.3 5 Receiving unlawful gratuities
S 200.40 Bribe giving and bribe receiving for public office; definition of term
S 200.45 Bribe giving for public office
S 200 .50 Bribe receiving for public office
ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS
S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree. S 175 .10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
S 175.15 Falsifying business records; defense
S 175 .20 Tampering with public records in the second degree
S 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree
S 175.30 Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree
S 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree
NY Constitution ARTICLE XIII Public Officers
Public Officers - Public Officers ARTICLE 1
ARTICLE 2 Appointment and Qualification of Public Officers - ARTICLE 15 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
S 468-b. Clients· security fund of the state of New York
S 476 -a. Action for unlawful practice of the law
S 476 -b. Injunction to restrain defendant from unlawful practice of the law
S 476-c. Investigation by the attorney-general
S 487. Misconduct by attorneys
S 488. Buying demands on which to bring an action.

                                                                                 10
Public Officers Law SEC 73 Restrictions on the Activities Of Current and Former State Officers and Employees
Public Officers Law SEC 7 4 Code of Ethics
Conflicts of Interest Law, found in Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter, the City's Financial Disclosure Law, set forth in section 12-110 of the New York City
Administrative Code, and the Lobbyist Gift Law, found in sections 3-224 through 3-228 of the Administrative Code.

TITLE 18 FEDERAL CODE & OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission ofa felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and
does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge's mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of infotmation of a federal
crime. If that judge blocks such repoti, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.
Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal
cnme.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district couits shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the
nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal couits to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt
unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Fraud upon the court

FRAUD on the COURT
In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to cotitt so that the court is impaired in the impattial performance of its
legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to tl1e operation of justice that it is not subject to any
statute oflimitation.
Officers of the court include: Lawyers, Judges, Referees, and those appointed; Guardian Ad Litem, Parenting Time Expeditors, Mediators, Rule 114 Neutrals,
Evaluators, Administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.
"Fraud upon tl1e court" has been defmed by the 7tl1 Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a
fraud pe1petrated by officers of tl1e co mt so tliat tl1e judicial machinery can not perfonn in tl1e usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases tliat are presented for
adjudication". Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, iJ 60.23
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is
not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or petjury .. .. It is where the couit or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is
attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding? "Fraud upon the court" makes void the
orders and judgments of that court.


TITLE 18 PART I CH 11
Sec. 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses
Sec. 225. - Continuing financial crimes enterprise
BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Sec. 205 . - Activities of officers and employees in claims against and other matters affecting the Government
Sec. 208. - Acts affecting a personal fmancial interest
Sec. 210. - Offer to procure appointive public office
Sec. 225. - Continuing financial crimes enterprise
TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 Sec 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court
Sec 654 - Officer or employee of United States conveiting property of anotl1er·
TITLE 18 PART I CH 73 Sec 1511 - Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1961 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT Organizations ("RICO")
             Section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice),
             Section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations)
             Section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement),
             Section 195 2 (relating to racketeering),
             Section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity),
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (A) RICO
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (B) RICO
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (C) RICO
TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 SEC 1962 (D) RICO
TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 CONSPIRACY Sec 371 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENSE OR TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES
TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1957 Engaging in monetary transactions in prope1ty derived from specified unlawful activity
TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 Sec 1031 - Major fraud against the United States

Judicial Cannons
What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"
      Federal Jaw requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
      In 1994, the U.S . Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would enteitain reasonable questions about the judge's impattiality.
If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis
added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
      Comts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services
Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is notthe reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d
1191 (7tl1 Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code,
28 U .S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
      That Couti also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor
v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is impottant that the litigant not only actually
receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

                                                                                       11
     The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S . 610, 80 S.Ct.
1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U .S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested pmty over which he is presiding, does
not give the appearance of justice.
     "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the
stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
     Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further
stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
     Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law,
then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the
disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued
by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
     Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845
(7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
     Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his I her property, then the judge may have been
engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It
has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some
judges may not follow the law.
     If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of
partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
     However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S.
Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under ce1tain
circumstances .
      The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wm·s against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a
judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason,
and may be engaged in exto1tion and the interference with interstate commerce.
       Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal
acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
Canon l. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
[l. l] Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integ11ty and independence of
judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, thev must comply with the law, including the provisions of this
Code. Public confidence in the impa1tiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code
diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.
Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
(A) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
 [2.2][2A] The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because
it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not
specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for
appearance ofimprop11ety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with
integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.
Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently
(B) Adjudicative responsibilities.
(I) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clmnor or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.
(D) Disciplinary responsibilities.
(1) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a substantial violation of this Pait shall take appropriate
action.
(2) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
shall take appropriate action.
(3) Acts of a judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities are part of a judge's judicial duties.
(E) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned
[3 .11 ][3B(6)(e)] A judge may delegate the responsibilities of the judge under Canon 3B(6) to a member of the judge's staff. A judge must make reasonable efforts,
including the provision of appropriate supervision, to ensure that Section 3B(6) is not violated through law clerks or other personnel on the judge's staff. This provision
does not prohibit tl1e judge or the judge's law clerk from informing all parties individually of scheduling or administrative decisions.
[3.21][3E(l )] Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in
Section 3E(l) apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm, tl1e judge would be disqualified from any matters in
which that fum appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.
[3.22][3E(l)] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of
disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.
Canon 4. A Judge May Engage in Extra-Judicial Activities To Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice
Canon 5. A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties

Public Office Conduct Codes New York
PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW Laws 1909, Chap. 51.
CHAPTER 47 OF THE CONSOLIDATED LAWS PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW
Sec. 17. Defense and indemnification of state officers and employees. 2 (b)
Sec. 18. Defense and indemnification of officers and employees of public entities.3 (b)
Sec. 74. Code of ethics.(2)(3 )(4)
§ 73. Business or professional activities by state officers and employees and party officers.

NY Attorney Conduct Code
(a) "Differing interests" include every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment or the loyalty of a lawyer to a client, whether it be a conflicting,
inconsistent, diverse, or other interest.
CANON 5. A Lawyer Should Exercise Independent Professional Judgment on Behalf of a Client
DR 5-101 [1200.20] Conflicts of Interest - Lawyer's Own Interests.
                                                                                       12
DR 5-102 [1200.21] Lawyers as Witnesses.
DR 5-103 [1200.22] Avoiding Acquisition of Interest in Litigation.
DR 5-104 [1200.23] Transactions Between Lawyer and Client.
DR 5-105 [1200.24] Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation.
DR 5-108 [1200.27] Conflict of Interest - Former Client.
CANON 6. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Competently
CANON 7. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law
DR 7-102 [1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.
DR 7-llO [1200.41] Contact with Officials.
DR 8-101 [1200.42] Action as a Public Official.
DR 8-103 [1200.44] Lawyer Candidate for Judicial Office.
A. A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with section 100.5 of the Chief Administrator's Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR) and
Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
CANON 9. A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety
DR 9-101 [1 200 .45 J Avoiding Even the Appearance of Im propriety.


         I declare under penalty of perjury and more that the foregoing statemei;i.ts in this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE
FORM are true and correct. Executed on this __ day, of                          , 20_. I am aware that any false, fictitious , or
fraudulent statements or claims will subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties, including possible culpability in the
RICO related crimes including the alleged attempted murder of the inventor Eliot Bernstein and his wife and children in a terrorist
styled car-bombing attempt on their lives.
                             r'     .   ...      '




                                                      More images @ 'A<Ww.iviewit.tv
          I agree to accept responsibility for the unbiased review, and presentation of findings to the appropriate party(ies) who also
have executed this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM prior to review. A lack of signature will serve as evidence that
I have accepted this document with undisclosed conflict, relations, relationships or interests. In the event that I continue to represent
these matters without signing such COI first, this failure to sign and return the COI will act as a formal admission of such conflicts,
relations, relationships or interests and serve as Prima Facie evidence in the event criminal or civil charges are brought against me .
Organization:
Print FULL Name and Title



Signature                                                            Date           / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
          If you are unable to sign this COI and are therefore unable to continue further to pursue these matters_please attach a
                                                                                                                 ,
statement of whom we may contact as your replacement, in writing, within 10 business days to preclude legal actions against you for
Obstruction of Justice and more. A copy can be sent to iviewit(@iviewit.tv and the original sent to the mailing address below:
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL (yes, two identically named)
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. - DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
                                                                                13
Uview.com, Inc. - DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. - FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. - DL
LC., Inc . - FL
Iviewit.com LLC - DL
Iviewit LLC - DL
Iviewit Corporation - FL
Iviewit, Inc. - FL
Iviewit, Inc. - DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(56 1) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit(@i viewit. tv
bttp://www.iviewit.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http ://www.facebook.com/# !/iviewit
http://,vww.myspace.com/iviewit
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot
http ://www. yo utube. com/user/elio tbemstein? feature=mhum
http://wwv.r.TheDi"vineConstitution.com

Also, check out
Eliot's Testimony at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Part 1
http://ww,v.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cw0gogF4Fs&feature=plaver embedded
and Part 2@
http://wv.rwvoutube.com/watch?v=Apc Zc YNik&feature=related
and
Christine Anderson Whistleblower Testimony @
http ://www. youh1be.corn/watch ?v=6BlK 73p4 U eo
and
Eliot Part 1 - The Iviewit Inventions @
http://\vww.voutube .com/watch?v=LOn4hwemqWO
E liot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 1 with No Top Teeth, Don't Laugh, Very Important
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuII-IODcwQtM
E liot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 2 with No Top OR Bottom Teeth, '.Don't Laugh, Very Important
http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=jbOP3U1q6rnM

Thought that was crazy, try
http://www.voutube .com/watch?v=3mfW AwzpNlE&feature=results main&plavnext= 1&list=PL2ADE052D9122F SAD

Other Websites I like :
http://www.deniedpatent.com
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com
htti1://w,xw.judgewatch.org/index.html
http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com
http://www.corruptcourts.org
http ://www. rnakeo urofficialsaccounta ble. com
http://,vww.parentadvocates.org
htlp://www.ne,vvorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
http ://cuomotam.blogspot.com
http://www.disbarthefloridabar.com
http://vv1vw. tmsteefraud. com/trusteefraud-blog
http://vV\Vw.constitutionalguardian.com
http://www.arnericans4legalrefonn.com
http://www.judicialaccountabilitv .org
W\.V\v.electpollack.us
http://..,.rw\v.ruthrnpollackesq.com
http://www. VoteF orGreg. us Greg Fischer

                                                               14
http://wwvv.libertv -candidates.org/greg-fischer/
http://www.facebook.com/pagesNote-For-Greg/l l l 952 l 78833067
http://,;vww.killallthelawyers.ws/law (The Shakespearean Solution, The Butcher)

                  We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the
                  courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the
                  men who pervert the Constitution. - AbraiJiam Lincoln
                                                     CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
          This message and any attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S .C. SS 2510-2521.
          This e-mail, fax or mailed message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail, fax or mail and destroy all copies of the original message and call (561)
245 -8588. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through an electronic medium, please so advise
the sender immediately in a formal written request.
          *The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S .C. 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this
"Message," including attachments. The originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only; it may contain the
originator's confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this
Message in error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions . Recipients-in-error
shall notify the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall
expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch.
          *Wireless Copyright Notice* Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message. You must have the originator's full
written consent to alter, copy, or use this Message in any way. Originator acla.1~wl edge s others' copyrighted content in this
Message. Otherwise, Copyright© 2011 by originator Eliot Ivan Bernstein, iviewit!Ciliviewit.tv and www.iviewit.tv . All Rights
Reserved.




                                                                   15
                      EXHIBIT 1 - PARTIAL LIST OF KNOWN CONFLICTED PARTIES

• Proskauer Rose, LLP; Alan S Jaffe - Chairman Of The Board - ("Jaffe") ; Kenneth Rubenstein - ("Rubenstein"); Robert Kafin -
  Managing Partner - ("Kafin"); Christopher C. Wheeler - ("Wheeler"); Steven C. Krane - ("Krane"); Stephen R. Kaye - (''S. Kaye")
  and in his estate with New York Supreme Court Chief Judge Judith Kaye ("J. Kaye"); Matthew Triggs - ("Triggs"); Christopher
  Pruzaski - ("Pruzaski"); Mara Lerner Robbins - ("Robbins") ; Donald Thompson - ("Thompson"); Gayle Coleman; David George;
  George A Pincus; Gregg Reed; Leon Gold - ("Gold"); Albert Gortz - ("Gortz"); Marcy Hahn-Saperstein; Kevin J. Healy -
  ("Healy"); Stuart Kapp ; Ronald F. Storette; Chris Wolf; Jill Zammas; FULL LIST OF 601 liable Proskauer Partners; any other John
  Doe ("John Doe") Proskauer partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not linlited to Proskauer
  ROSE LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Proskauer related or affiliated
  entities both individually and professionally;
• MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN, WOLF & SCHLISSEL, P .C.; Lewis Melzter - ("Meltzer"); Raymond Joao - ("Joao"); Frank
  Martinez - ("Martinez"); Kenneth Rubenstein - ("Rubenstein"); FULL LIST OF 34 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel,
  P.C. liable Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C . partner, affiliate, company,
  known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C.; Partners,
  Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C.
  related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• FOLEY & LARDNER LLP; Ralf Boer ("Boer"); Michael Grebe ("Grebe"); Christopher Kise ("Kise"); William J. Dick - ("Dick");
  Steven C. Becker - ("Becker"); Douglas Boehm - ("Boehm"); Barry Grossman - ("Grossman"); Jim Clark - ("Clark") ; any other
  John Doe(" John Doe") Foley & Lardner partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited
  to Foley & Lardner; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Foley & Lardner related or
  affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; Richard Schiffrin - (" Schiffrin"); Andrew Barroway - ("Barroway"); Krishna Narine - ("Narine"); any
  other John Doe ("John Doe") Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this tin1e; including
  but not limited to Schiffrin & Barro way, LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other
  Schiffrin & Barroway , LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally ;
• Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP; Norman Zafman - ("Zafman") ; Thomas Coester - ("Coester"); Farzad Ahmini -
  ("Al1mini"); George Hoover - ("Hoover"); any other Jolm Doe ("John Doe") Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP partners,
  affiliates, companies, known or not known at this tin1e; including but not limited to Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP;
  Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP
  related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP; Martyn W. Molyneaux - ("Molyneaux"); Michael Dockterman - ("Dockterman"); FULL
  LIST OF 198 Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP liable Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Wildman, Harrold, Allen &
  Dixon LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Wildman, Harrold, Allen &
  Dixon LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon
  LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.; Alan M . Weisberg - ("Weisberg"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Christopher & Weisberg, P .A.
  partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. ;
  Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Christopher & Weisberg, P .A related or
  affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• YAMAKAWA INTERNATIONAL PATENT OFFICE; Masaki Yamakawa - ("Yamakawa"); any other John Doe ("John Doe")
  Yamakawa International Patent Office partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time ; including but not linlited to
  Yamakawa International Patent Office; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other
  Yamakawa International Patent Office related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• GOLDSTEIN LEWIN & CO.; Donald J. Goldstein - ("Goldstein") ; Gerald R. Lewin - ("Lewin"); Erika Lewin - ("E . Lewin"); Mark
  R. Gold; Paul Feuerberg; Salvatore Bochicchio; Marc H. List; David A. Katzman; Robert H. Garick; Robert C . Zeigen; Marc H.
  List; Lawrence A Rosenblum; David A. Katzman; Brad N. Mciver; Robert Cini; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Goldstein &
  Lewin Co. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time ; including but not limited to Goldstein & Lewin Co .;
  Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Goldstein & Lewin Co. related or affiliated
  entities both individually and professionally;
• INTEL Corporation;
• Silicon Graphics Inc.;
• Lockheed Martin Corporation;
• Real 3D, Inc. (SILICON GRAPHICS , INC., LOCKHEED MARTIN & INTEL) & RYJO; Gerald Stanley - ("Stanley") ; Ryan
  Huisman - ("Huisman"); RYJO - ("RYJO"); Tim Connolly - ("Connolly"); Steve Cochran; David Bolton; Rosalie Bibona -
  ("Bibona"); Connie Martin; Richard Gentner; Steven A. Behrens; Matt Johannsen; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Intel, Real 3D,
  Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc. , Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time;
  including but not limited to Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc, Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO; Employees,
  Corporations, Affiliates and any other Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc ., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO related or
  affiliated entities, and any successor companies both individually and professionally;
                                                                  16
• Tiedemmm Investment Group; Bruce T. Prolow ("Prolow"); Carl Tiedema1m ("C. Tiedemann"); Andrew Philip Chesler; Craig L.
  Smith; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Tiedemann Investment Group partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this
  time; including but not limited to Tiedemann Investment Group and any other Tiedemann Investment Group related or affiliated
  entities both individually and professionally ;
• Crossbow Ventures I Alpine Partners; Stephen J. Warner - ("Warner"); Rene P. Eichenberger - ("Eichenberger"); H.
  Hickman Hank Powell - ("Powell") ; Maurice Buchsbaum - ("Buchsbaum"); Eric Chen - ("Chen"); Avi Hersh; Matthew Shaw -
  ("Shaw"); Bruce W. Shewniaker - ("Shewmaker"); Ravi M. Ugale - ("Ugale"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Crossbow
  Ventures I Alpine Partners partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Crossbow
  Ventures I Alpine Partners and any other Crossbow Ventures I Alpine Partners related or affiliated entities both individually and
  professionally;
• BROAD & CASSEL; James J. Wheeler - (" J. Wheeler"); Kelly Overstreet Johnson - ("Jolmson"); any other John Doe ("John Doe")
  Broad & Cassell partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Broad & Cassell and
  any other Broad & Cassell related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• FORMER IVIEWIT MANAttorney GeneralEMENT & BOARD; Brian G. Utley/Proskauer Referred Management - ("Utley") ;
  Raymond Hersh - ("Hersh")/; Michael Reale - ("Reale")/Proskauer Referred Management; Rubenstein/Proskauer Rose Shareholder
  in Iviewit - Advisory Board; Wheeler/Proskauer Rose Shareholder in Iviewit - Advisory Board; Dick/Foley & Lardner - Advisory
  Board, Boehni/Foley & Lardner - Advisory Board; Becker/Foley & Lardner; Advisory Board; Joao/Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe
  & Schlissel - Advisory Board; Kane/Goldman Sachs - Board Director; Lewin/Goldstein Lewin - Board Director; Ross Miller, Esq.
  ("Miller"), Prolow/Tiedemmm Pro low II - Board Director; Powell/Crossbow Ventures/Proskauer Referred Investor - Board
  Director; Maurice Buchsbaum - Board Director; Stephen Warner - Board Director; Simon L. Bernstein - Board Director (" S.
  Bernstein"); any other John Doe(" John Doe") Former Iviewit Management & Board partners, affiliates, companies, known or not
  known at this time; including but not limited to Former Iviewit Management & Board and any other Former Iviewit Management &
  Board related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA; Judge Jorge LABARGA - ("Labarga"); any other John
  Doe ("John Doe") FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA staff, known or not known to have been
  involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as (" l 5C");
• THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL
  DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE; Thomas Cahill - ("Cahill"); Joseph Wigley - ("Wigley"); Steven Krane, any other John Doe
  ("John Doe") ofTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRSlf JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
  DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time;
• THE FLORIDA BAR; Lorraine Christine Hoffman - ("Hoffman"); Eric Turner - ("Turner") ; Kenneth Marvin - ("Marvin");
  Anthony Boggs - ("Boggs") ; Joy A Bartmon - ("Bartmon") ; Kelly Overstreet Johnson - ("Johnson"); Jerald Beer - ("Beer") ;
  Matthew Triggs; Christopher or James Wheeler; any other John Doe ("John Doe") The Florida Bar staff, known or not known to
  have been involved at the time;
• MPEGLA, LLC. - Kenneth Rubenstein, Patent Evaluator; Licensors and Licensees, please visit wwv1.mpegla.com for a complete
  list; Columbia University ; Fujitsu Limited; General Instrument Corp; Lucent Technologies Inc.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. ,
  Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips); Scientific Atlanta, Inc.; Sony Corp. (Sony); EXTENDED LIST
  OF MPEGLA LICENSEES AND LICENSORS; any other John Doe MPEGLA, LLC. Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or
  Employee; any other John Doe ("John Doe") MPEGLA, LLC partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time;
  including but not limited to MPEGLA, LLC and any other MPEGLA, LLC related or affiliated entities both individually and
  professionally;
• DVD6C LICENSING GROUP - Licensors and Licensees, please visit www.mpegla.com for a complete list; Toshiba Corporation;
  Hitachi, Ltd. ; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. ; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Time Warner Inc. ; Victor Company Of
  Japan, Ltd. ; EXTENDED DVD6C DEFENDANTS ; any other John Doe DVD6C LICENSING GROUP Partner, Associate,
  Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe ("John Doe") DVD6C LICENSING GROUP partners, affiliates,
  companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to DVD6C LICENSING GROUP and any other DVD6C
  LICENSING GROUP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• Harrison Goodard Foote incorporating Brewer & Son; Martyn Molyneaux, Esq. ("Molyneaux"); Any other Jolm Doe ("John Doe")
  Harrison Goodard Foote (incorporating Brewer & Son) partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time ; including
  but not limited to Harrison Goodard Goote incorporating Brewer & Son and any other related or affiliated entities both individually
  and professionally;
• Lawrence DiGiovanna, Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary
  Committee;
• James E. Peltzer, Clerk of the Court of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial
  Department; Diana Kearse, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental
  Disciplinary Committee;
• Houston & Shahady, P.A. , any other John Doe ("John Doe") Houston & Shahady, P .A. , affiliates, companies, known or not known
  at this time ; including but not limited to Houston & Shahady, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• Furr & Cohen, P.A. any other John Doe (" Jolm Doe") Furr & Cohen, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time ;
  including but not limited to Furr & Cohen, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;

                                                                    17
• Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., any other John Doe ("John Doe") Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A. ,
   affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A.
   related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Jeffrey Friedstein ("Friedstein") ; Sheldon Friedstein (S. Friedstein"), Donald G. Kane ("Kane") ;
   any other John Doe ("John Doe") The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time;
   including but not limited to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and any other re~ated or affiliated entities both individually and
   professionally;
• David B. Simon, Esq. ("D. Simon");
• Sachs Saxs & Klein, PA any other John Doe ("John Doe") Sachs Saxs & Klein, PA, affiliates, companies, known or not known at
   this time; including but not limited to Sachs Saxs & Klein, PA related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
• Huizenga Holdings Incorporated any other John Doe ("John Doe") Huizenga Holdings Incorporated affiliates, companies, known or
   not known at this time; including but not limited to Huizenga Holdings Incor]orated related or affiliated entities both individually
   and professionally;
• Davis Polk & Wardell;
• Ropes & Gray LLP;
• Sullivan & Cromwell LLP;
• Eliot I. Bernstein, ("Bernstein") a resident of the State of California, and fo~er President (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and its
   affiliates and subsidiaries and the founder of Iviewit and principal inventor of its technology;
• P. Stephen Lamont, ("Lamont") a resident of the State of New York, and former Chief Executive Officer (Acting) oflviewit
   Holdings, Inc. and all of its affiliates and subsidiaries;
• SKULL AND BONES; The Russell Trust Co.; Yale Law School;
• Council on Foreign Relations ;
• The Bilderberg Group;
• The Federalist Society;
• The Bradley Foundation;
Please include in the COI check the defendants and any other parties in the legally related cases in New York District Court Southern
District of New York to Docket No 07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHlSTLEBLOWERLAWSUIT,
including but not limited to;
A.              United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 08-4873-cv
B.              (07cvl 1196) Bernstein et al v Appellate Division First Departme~t Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION
                DOLLAR LAWSUIT Defendants, in addition to those already listed herein, include but are not limited to;
     •     STATE OF NEW YORK;
     •     THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;
      •    STE VEN C. KRANE in his official and individual Capacities for the New York State Bar Association and the Appellate
           Division First Department Departmental disciplinary Committee, and, l;lls professional and individual capacities as a
           Proskauer partner;
      •    EST ATE OF STEPHEN KA YE, in his professional and individual capacities;
      •    MATTHEW M. TRIGGS in his official and individual capacity for The Florida Bar and his professional and individual
           capacities as a partner of Proskauer;
      •    JON A. BAUMGARTEN, in his professional and individual capacitiesi
      •    SCOTT P. COOPER, in his professional and individual capacities;
      •    BRENDAN J. O'ROURKE, in his professional and individual capacities;
      •    LAWRENCE I. WEINSTEIN, in his professional and individual capacities;
     •     WILLIAM M. HART, in his professional and individual capacities;
     •     DARYN A. GROSSMAN, in his professional and indiv idual capacities;
     •     JOSEPH A. CAPRARO JR., in his professional and individual capacities;
      •    JAMES H . SHALEK; in his professional and individual capacities;
      •    GREGORY MASHBERG, in his professional and individual capacities;
      •    JOANNA SMITH, in her professional and individual capacities;
     •     TODD C. NORBITZ, in his professional and individual capacities;
      •    ANNE SEKEL, in his professional and individual capacities;
      •    JIM CLARK, in his professional and individual capacities;
      •    STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR, FLORIDA;
      •    FLORIDA SUPREME COURT;
      •    HON. CHARLES T. WELLS, in his official and individual capacities;
      •    HON. HARRY LEE ANSTEAD, in his official and individual capacities;
      •    HON. R. FRED LEWIS, in his official and individual capacities;
      •    HON. PEGGY A. QUINCE, in his official and individual capacities;
      •    HON. KENNETH B. BELL, in his official and individual capacities;
                                                                   18
•   THOMAS HALL, in his official and individual capacities;
•   DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her official and individual capacitiesf
•   DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION - FLORIDA;
•   CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLA;
•   ROBERT FLECHAUS in his official and individual capacities;
•   ANDREW SCOTT in his official and individual capacities;
•   PAUL CURRAN in his official and individual capacities;
•   MARTIN R. GOLD in his official and individual capacities;
                                                                         1

•   SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT;
•   CATHERINE O'HAttorney GeneralEN WOLFE in her official and i~dividual capacities;
•   HON . ANGELA M . MAZZARELLI in her official and individual capacities;
•   HON. RICHARDT. ANDRIAS in his official and individual capacities;
•   HON. DAVID B. SAXE in his official and individual capacities;
•   HON . DAVID FRIEDMAN in his official and individual capacities;
•   HON. LUIZ A GONZALES in his official and individual capacities; I
•   SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND mDICIAL DEPARTMENT;
•   SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL
    DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE;
•   HON. A GAIL PRUDENTI in her official and individual capacities;
•   HON. mDITH S. KA YE in her official and individual capacities;
•   STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION;
•   ANTHONY CARTUSCIELLO in his official and individual capacities;
•   LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
•   OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
•   ELIOT SPITZER in his official and individual capacities, as both former Attorney General for the State of New York, and, as
    former Governor of the State of New York;
•   ANDREW CUOMO in his official and individual capacities, as both former Attorney General for the State of New York,
    and, as current Governor of the State ofNew York;
•   ;~;~~~ ~~t;~~~e~ ~~::f:~~~ :~~~:~:~~~~~~::~c~~~~e~~~!:~rj;~;~~~:~~~~~\~!~rney General A11drew Cuomo
                                                                         I              .
•   Emily Cole, in her official and individual capacities, as an employee of Steven M . Cohen for the Governor Cuomo of the
    State ofNew York;                                                      I
•   COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA;
•   VIRGINIA STATE BAR;
•   ANDREW H. GOODMAN in his official and individual capacities;
•   NOEL SENGEL in her official and individual capacities;
•   MARY W. MARTELINO in her official and individual capacities;
•   LIZBETH L. MILLER, in her official and individual capacities;
•   MPEGLA LLC; LAWRENCE HORN, in his professional and individual capacities;
•   INTEL CORP.; LARRY PALLEY, in his professional and individual capacities;
•   SILICON GRAPHICS, INC.;
•   LOCKHEED MARTIN Corp;
•   EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE;
•   ALAIN POMPIDOU in his official and individual capacities;
•   WIM VAN DER EIJK in his official and individual capacities;
•   LISE DYBDAHL in her official and personal capacities;
•   DIGITAL INTERACTIVE STREAMS, INC.;
•   ROYAL O'BRIEN, in his professional and individual capacities;
•   HUIZENGA HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, WAYNE HUIZENGA, in his professional and individual capacities;
•   WAYNE HUIZENGA, JR., in his professional and individual capacities;
•   BART A HOUSTON, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
•   BRADLEY S. SCHRAIBERG, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
•   WILLIAM G. SALIM, ESQ in his professional and individual capacities;
•   BEN ZUCKERMAN, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
•   SPENCER M. SAX, in his professional and individual capacities;
•   ALBERTO GONZALES in his official and individual capacities;
•   JO:HJ\INlli E. FRAZIER in his official and individual capacities;
•   IVIE WIT, INC., a Florida corporation;
                                                            19




                                                                                                                              '4t
      •   IVIE WIT, INC. , a Delaware corporation;
      •   IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. , a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Uview.com, Inc.);
      •   UVIEW.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation;
      •   IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC, a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Ivi~wit Holdings, ~nc.);
      •   IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. , a Florida corporation;
      •   IVIEWIT.COM, INC., a Florida corporation;
      •   LC., INC., a Florida corporation;
      •   IVIEWIT.COM, INC. , a Delaware corporation;
      •   IVIEWIT.COM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
      •   IVIEWIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ;
      •   IVIEWIT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation;
      •   IBM CORPORATION;


      To be added New Defendants in the RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit through amendment or in any anticipated future
      litigations and criminal filings:

      •   Andrew Cuomo, in his official and individual capacities,
      •   Steven M. Cohen, in his official and individual capacities,
      •   Emily Cole, in her official and individual capacities,
      •   Justice Richard C. Wesley in his official and individual capacities,
      •   Justice Peter W. Hall in his official and individual capacities,
      •   Justice Debra Ann Livingston in her official and individual capacities,
                                                                               1

      •   Justice Ralph K Winter in his official and individual capacities,
      •   P. Stephen Lamont, (Questions about Lamont's filings on behalf of others and more filed with criminal authorities
          and this Court notified of the alleged fraudulent activities of Lamont)
      •   Alan Friedberg, in his official and individual capacities,
      •   Roy Reardon, in his official and individual capacities,
      •   Martin Glenn, in his official and individual capacities,
      •   Warner Bros. Entertainment, (Already named in the lawsuit since the amended complaint filed)
      •   Time Warner Communications, (Already named in the lawsuit since the amended complaint filed)
      •   AOL Inc., (Already named in the lawsuit since the amended complaint filed)
      •   Ropes & Gray,
      •   Stanford Financial Group,
      •   Bernard L. Madoff et al.
      •   Marc S. Dreier, (Already named in the lawsuit since the amended complaint filed)
      •   Sony Corporation, (Already named in the lawsuit since the amended complaint filed)
      •   Ernst & Young, (Already named in the lawsuit since the amended complaint filed)
      •   Arthur Andersen, (Already named in the lawsuit since the amended complaint filed)
      •   Enron, (Already named in the lawsuit since the amended complaint filed)

C. Other Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY Related to Christine C. Anderson
     • 07cv09599            Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT;
     •   07cv11196          Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.;
     • 07cvl 1612           Esposito v The State of New York, et al. ;
     •   08cv00526          Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.;
     •   08cv02391          McKeown v The State of New York, et al. ;
     • 08cv02852            Galison v The State of New York, et al.;
     • 08cv03305            Carvel v The State of New York, et al.;
     • 08cv04053            Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al. ;
     • 08cv04438             Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
     • 08cv06368            JohnL. Petrec-Tolino v. The State ofNew York




                                                                   20
                                          0-·-·--
                                          1
                          l~Ewl 0 . l~T TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                                                Swt.f, witli Vi/JW!t


Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL (yes, two identically named)
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. - DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Uview.com, Inc. - DL
lviewit.com, Inc. - FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. - DL
I.C., Inc. - FL
lviewit.com LLC - DL
Iviewit LLC - DL
Iviewit Corporation - FL
lviewit, Inc. - FL
lviewit, Inc. - DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245 .8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit(W,iviewit. tv
http://www. iviewit. tv
http://ivievvit.tv/in ventor/index.htm
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http://www.facebook.com/#!/iviewit
http://www.myspace.com/iviewit
http ://i viewit. tv/wordpresseliot
http://www.voutube.com/user/eliotbernstein?feature=mhum
http://www.TheDivineConstih1tion .com

Also, check out

Eliot's Testimony at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Part 1
http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=8CwOgogF4Fs&fea11!fe=player embedded

and Part 2 @ my favorite part
http://www.voutube.com/watch ?v=Apc Zc YNik&feature=related

and
Christine Anderson New York Supreme Court Attorney Ethics Expert Whistleblower Testimony, FOX IN THE
HENHOUSE and LAW WHOLLY VIOLATED TOP DOWN EXPOSING JUST HOW WALL STREET I GREED
STREET I FRAUD STREET MELTED DOWN AND WHY NO PROSECUTIONS QR RECOVERY OF STOLEN


                                                           21
FUNDS HAS BEEN MADE. Anderson in US Fed Court Fingers, US Attorneys, DA' s, ADA ' s, the New York Attorney
General and "Favored Lawyers and Law Firms" @
http://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=6BlK73 p4Ueo

and finally latest blog
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=594

Eliot Part 1 - The Iviewit Inventions @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOn4hwemqWO

Eliot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 1 with No Top Teeth, Don't Laugh, Very Important
http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=DuIHODcwOfM

                                                                         ,
Eliot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 2 with No Top OR Bottom Teeth_Don't Laugh, Very Important
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOP3Ulg6mM

Eliot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 3 Very Important
https://www.facebook.com/iviewit?ref=tn hmm#l/note.php?note id=319280841435989

Other Websites I like :

http://www.deniedpatent.com
http://e:xposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com
http://www.judgewatch.org/index.html
http: //wv.;w. enddiscriminationnow .com
http://www.corruptcourts.org
http://www.makeourofficialsaccountable.com
http://www.parentadvocates.org
http://www.nev.yorkcourtcmnmtion. blog spot. com
http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com
http://wwvY.disbarthefloridabar.com
http://www. trusteefrau d.com/trus teefraud-b Iog
http://www.constitutionalguardian.com
http://www.americans4legalrefonn.com
http://www.judicialaccountabilitv.org
www.electpollack.us
http://www.ruthmpollackesg.com
www.HireLvrics.org
www.Facebook.com/Roxanne. Grinage
www.Twitter.com/HireLvrics
www.YouTube.com/HireLvrics
www.YouTube.com/~1iatisThereLeftToDo
www.YouTube.com/RoxanneGrinage
www.BlogTalkRadio.com/Born-To-Serve
v\ww.ireport.c1m.com/people/HireLyrics
http://www. attomeysabovethelaw. com
http://heavensclimb.blogspot.com
http://www.VoteForGreg.us Greg Fischer
http://www.libertv-candidates.org/greg-fischer/
http://www.facebook.com/pagesNote-For-Greg/l l 1952178833067
http://www.killallthelawyers.ws/law (The Shakespearean Solution, The Butcher)


"We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrpw the Constitution, but to
overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

                                                             22
"Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends
forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, these ripples
build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F. Kennedy

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know
not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

I live by the saying,

ELLEN G. WHITE
The greatest want of the world is the want of men, --men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls
are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as trne to duty as the
needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall. -Education, p. 57(1903)

If you are one of these people, nice to be your friend       ~Eliot


             Etiot L Bernstein
            lviewit Technologies, Inc
            Founder & Inventor
            {561) 245-8588 Work
            (561) 886-7628 Mobile
            (561) 245-8644facsimile
            ivie wit@iviev~it.tv
            eliot@ivfePAJit.tv
            2753N. W. 34th St.
            Boca Raton, Florida 33434
            http: [iwww.ivie•Nit. tv


NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning,
warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight and it can happen to ordinary
Americans like you and me. You have no recourse nor protection save to vote against any incumbent endorsing such
unlawful acts.

CONFlDJ'.NTIALlTY NOTICE:
This message and am attachments arc CO\'crcd lw the Eledronic Communicuti<)lls PriYm;y Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521 .
Thi~ L~-mail message is intended only for the person or entity lo \\·Inch 1t is addressed and nm\ contain confidential andior priYilegcd
material. Any unauthori1.cd reYie\\. use. disclosure or distrib ution is prohibited. ff you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender lw reply e-mail and destrny ull copies of the original message or call (561) 245 -8588. Ir vou arc the in tended recipient but do
1wt \\ ish to rccciYc communications through this medium. please so ach·isc the ~e nder imrncdia'lch.

*The Electronic Co=unications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments. The originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only ; it may contain the originator's
confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in
error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify
the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver
this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch.

*Wireless Copyright Notice*. Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message. You must have the originator's full written
consent to alter, copy, or use this Message. Originator acknowledges others ' copyrighted content in this Message. Otherwise,
Copyright © 2011 by originator Eliot Ivan Bernstein, iviewitl@iviewit.tvand www.iviewit.tv. All Rights Reserved.




                                                                      23
[IJ   il Sommo Poeta ~Durante degli Alighieri, "Divina Commedia" 1308-1321 Canto III




                                                                24
··.,_,. ,.




                                                      STOCK LEDGER

                                            Capitalization of iviewit Holdings, Inc.
                                                         Fully-Diluted
                                             (For Non-Diluted, See End of Chart)

                                     Shareholder                Number and Class of
                                                                     Shares


                                 Eliot I. Bernstein (1)        11,320 Class A Common


                                Simon L. Bernstein (1)         5,350 Class A Common


                                The Joshua Bernstein           2,415 Class B Common
                                   1999 Trust(l)
                              The Jacob Bernstein 1999         2,415 Class B Common
                                      Trust (1)
                                 Gerald R. Lewin &             2,000 Class B Common
                                Barbara S. Lewin (1)
                                 Erika R. Lewin ( 1)            250 Class B Common
                                Jennifer P. Lewin (1)           250 Class B Common     !

                                 James Osterling ( 1)          1,250 Class B Common
                                                                                       I
                                James Armstrong ( 1)           1, 750 Class B Common
                                 Guy Iantoni        (1)        1,250 Class B Common
                                 Jill Iantoni       (1)        1,250 Class B Common
                                 Andrew Dietz       (1)        1,250 Class B Common

                                 Donna Dietz        (1)        1,250 Class B Common

                                Patricia Daniels (1)           1,250 Class B Common    I


                                 Bettie Stanger     (1)         500 Class B Common
                                Lisa Friedstein      (1)      2,500 Class B Common
                              Donald G. Kane, II (1)           1,663 Class B Common

                               Eliot I. Bernstein (1)         7,500 Class B Common


         5063/40017-001 BRLIB1 /261593 v1                                              f   5/04/00 02:04 PM {2859)


                                                                                       I
          Simon L. Bernstein (1)     5,000 Class B Common
          Brian G. Utley (1) (2)     1,714 Class B Common
         INVESTECH Holdings          3,007 Class A Common
               L.L.C.

          Alpine Venture Capital     2,580 Series A Preferred
               Partners LP
              Joan Stark (3)          522 Class B Common
         Emerald Capital Partners,   2,250 Class B Common
                 Inc. (4)
               Jason Gregg            645 Class A Common




I
I
I

I
I
I

I
I                    ":>~ . .




I
I
1:-'"•
                                     iviewit Technologies, Inc.
                                   (f/k/a iviewit Holdings, Inc.)
                                            Stockholders




                   Stockholder          Number and Class of         Stock Issued
                                             Shares

                                                               I




             iviewit Holdings, Inc.   55,134 Class A Voting         1-A & 3-A
                                      Common


             New Media Holdings,      1,250 Class B Non-Voting      1-B
             Inc.                     Common


             Proskauer Rose LLP        1,250 Class B Non-Voting     2-B
                                       Common

             Zakirul Shirajee         1,250 Class B Non-Voting      3-B
                                      Common


             Jude Rosario             1,250 Class B Non-Voting      4-B
                                      Common



iviewit Technologies, Inc. Capitalization
Total Class A common stock issued and outstanding:                  55,134
Total Class B common stock issued and outstanding:                  5,000
Total Class A and B common stock issued and outstanding:            60,134




5063/40017-001 BRLIB1 /253975 v1                                             02/23100 02:04 PM (2859)
                                                                                                            '·   ,.   ;~




                                                                                                        ,;:i<•'f z
                                                                                                        :,·    .. .   •

                                                                                                        '                  '
?!


                                                                   iviewit.com, Inc.
                                                                     Stockholders


                                   Stockholder        Number of Shares      Percentage    Amount of      Stock Issued
                                                                                of       Consideration
                                                                            Ownership      Received


                             iviewit Technologies,          100            100%          Restructuring   No. 1
                                                                                                                                                c
                             Inc. (transferred from
                             iviewit LLC)




                                                                                                                                               (_




               5063/40017 -00 1 BRLIB1 /252473 v1                                                                01 /1 1/00 12 :16 PM (2859)




~


 """
 )
       \':,
       ','i\
,--
~
      -




                                                             iviewit LLC
                                                  GRANTS OF LLC MEMBERSHIP UNITS


                          Member            Number of Units   Date Letter   Date Letter   Consideration       Date
                                                                 Sent       Received        Received         Member
                                                                                                            Certificate
                                                                                                             Issued
                                                                                                                                               c·
                   New Media Holdings,      12,500 Class B      7/8/99        7/30/99        $625.00
                   Inc.


                   Jude Rosario             12,500 Class B      7/8/99        7/15/99      To be paid in
                                                                                             one year
                   Proskauer Rose LLP       12,500 Class B      7/8/99         7/9/99        $625.00


                   iviewit Holdings, Inc.   521,268 Class A     7/8/99         7/9/99     Contribution of
                                                                                             Patents

                   Zakirul Shirajee         12,500 Class B      7/8/99        7/15/99      To be paid in
                                                                                             one year                                      (
                   INVESTECH                30,067 Class A      11/1/99     11117/99      Conversion of
                   Holdings L.L.C (1)                                                         note


      Total Outstanding: 601,335 Membership Units, consisting of
             551,335 Class A Units
             50,000 Class B Units


      5063/40017-001 BRLIB1 /234194 v4                                                                         01113/00 10:47 AM (2761 l
        .   '




                                                       iviewit.com LLC
                                                    Promissory Noteholders



                    Noteholder/Requested           Date Letter   Date Letter     Amount of           Date
                        Amount                        Sent        Received         Check          Promissory
                                                                                  Received        Note Mailed
                 Simon L. Bernstein $30,000          718199        7113199        $30,000            8123199
                 Gerald R. Lewin       $15,000       718199        813199         $15,000            8123199
                 Barbara Lewin         $15,000       718199        813199         $15,000            8118/99
                 Guy Iantoni           $11,790        7/8/99      7114199         $11,790           8118199
                                       $ 3,210       10/8/99      10129199        $ 3,210           11/5/99

                 Jill Iantoni          $10,000       7/8199        7114199        $10,000            8/18199
                                       $ 5,000       10/8/99      10129i99        $ 5,000            1115199

                 James F. Armstrong $15,000          718199       7123199         $15,000            8118199
                                    $ 6,000         9127199      Not Rec'd          NIA                NIA
                 Andrew Dietz          $15,000        718199     Not Rec'd          NIA                NIA
                                       $15,000       9127199      10/18/99        $15,000           10/19/99

                 Donna Dietz            $15,000      718199        1115/99        $15,000            11/9/99

                 James A. Osterling $15,000           718199     Not Rec'd          NIA               NIA
                                    $15,000          9127/99     Not Rec'd          NIA               NIA
                                    $15,000          1119/99

                 Lisa Friedstein        $15,000       718199      7123199         $15,000            8118199
                                        $15,000      9127199     Not Rec'd          NIA               NIA
                 Donald G. Kane, II     $22,500      718199        7/30199        $22,500            8/18/99


I
I
I
I               Note: As indicated in the above chart, Jerry Lewin, on behalf of iviewit.com LLC, has requested
I               additional loans (although some loans will be original loans) from Jill Iantoni, Guy Iantoni,
I               Andrew Dietz, Lisa Friedstein, James Armstrong and James Osterling.
I
I
I
I
I
I
                5063/40017-001 BRUS 1 /234202 v3                                          10/19/99 04:10 PM (2761)
    I
    I
    I
    I
                                                                                      ..)
                                                                                     \.




                                                               STOCK LEDGER

                                                     Capitalization of iviewit Holdings, Inc.
                                                                    Fully~Diluted
                                                      (For Non-Diluted, See End of Chart)


                                               Shareholder                Number and Class of
                                                                               Shares



                                           Eliot I. Bernstein (I)        11,320 Class A Common


                                         Simon L. Bernstein (1)           5,350 Class A Common


                                          The Joshua Bernstein            2,415 Class B Common
                                             1999 Trust (1)

                                       The Jacob Bernstein 1999           2,415 Class B Common
                                               Trust (1)

                                           Gerald R. Lewin &              2,000 Class B Common
                                          Barbara S. Lewin (1)

                                           Erika R. Lewin (1)             250 Class B Common

                                        · Jennifer P. Lewin (1)           250 Class D Common

                                           James Osterling (1)            1,250 Class B Common

                                          James Armstrong (1)            1,750 Class B Common

                                           Guy Iantoni       (1)         1,250 Class B Common

                                          Jill Iantoni       (1)         1,250 Class B Common
'
'                                         Andrew Dietz       (1)         I ,250 Class B Common
'
                                          Donna Dietz        (1)         1,250 Class B Common
    '

                                          Patricia Daniels (1)           1,250 Class B Common

                                          Bettie Stanger     (1)          500 Class B Common

                                          Lisa Friedstein    (1)         2,500 Class B Common
        '
        '
         '
          '                             Donald G. Kane, II (1)           1,663 Class B Common
          '
                                         Eliot L Bernstein (1)           7,500 Class B Common
              '
               '
               '


                   5063/40017-001 BRLIBl/261593 v1                                               05/04/00 02:04 PM (2859)
 Simon L. Bernstein (1)       5,000 Class B Common

  Brian G. Utley (1) (2)      1, 714 Class B Common

 INVESTECH Holdings           3,007 Class A Common
       L.L.C.

 Alpine Venture Capital       2,580 Series A Preferred
      Partners LP
   . Joan Stark (3)            522 Class B Common

Emerald Capital Partners,     2,250 Class B Common
        Inc. (4)

      Jason Gregg              645 Class A Common




                         ,·




                                                                 1
                                                                 i
                                                                      I
                                                                      I
                                                                 I;;
                                                                 l
                                                                 I    I
                                                                 I l1
                                                                 l
                                                                 l i
                                                                 j    '
                                                                 '!   I
                                                                      I
                                                                 !    \
                                                                 '    I

                                                                 i    l
                                                                 il
                                                                 1 ;

                                                                 i
                                                                 i
                                                                 !
                                                         I·'~   ~j


            ··.:.-.. ,




                                                            !;
                                         iviewit Technologies, Inc.
                                       (f/k/a iviewit Holdings, Inc.)
                                                Stockholders




                   Stockholder              Number and Class of         Stock Issued
                                                 Shares




              iviewit Holdings, Inc.      55,134 Class A Voting         I-A & 3-A
                                          Common


             New Media Holdings,          1,250 Class B Non-Voting      1-B
             Inc.                         Common


             Proskauer Rose LLP           1,250 Class B Non-Voting      2-B
                                          Common

             Zakirul Shirajee             1,250 Class B Non-:Voting     3-B
                                          Common


             Jude Rosario                 1,250 Class B Non-Voting      4-B
                                          Common



iviewit Technologies, Inc. Capitalization
Total Class A common stock issued and outstanding:                      55,134
Total Class B common stock issued and outstanding:                       5,000
Total Class A and B common stock issued and outstanding:                60,134


                                                                                                                I

                                                                                                                l
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                !


                                                                                                            : \
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                            : !
                                                                                                            : !
                                                                                                                i
                                                                                                            '
                                                                                                            '
                                                                                                                ''
                                                                                                            : \




                                                                                                            ft
5063/40017-001 BRLIB1 /253975 v1                                                 02/23/00 02:04 PM (2859)
'.'.'}




                                                               iviewit.com, Inc.
                                                                 Stockholders


                              Stockholder         Number of Shares      Percentage    Amount of      Stock Issued
                                                                            of       Consideration
                                                                        Ownership      Received
                                                                                                                                      (
                         ivieWit Technologies,          100            100%          Restructuring   No. 1
                         Inc. (transferred from
                         iviewit LLC)




                                                                                                                                      (




            5063/40017-001 8RLIB1 /252473 v1                                                                 01/11/00 12:16PM(2859)




         ~~=·-~~~ -
                          - -    -   -   -    -   - -   -




                                                                             iviewit LLC
                                                                 GRANTS 0.F LLC MEMBERSHIP UNITS


                                             Member         Number of Units   Date Letter   Date Letter   Consideration        Date
                                                                                 Sent       Received        Received         Member
                                                                                                                            Certificate
                                                                                                                              Issued
                                                                                                                                                           c
                            New Media Holdings,             12,500 Class B      7/8/99        7/30/99        $625.00
                            Inc.


                            Jude Rosario                    12,500 Class B      7/8/99        7/15/99     To be paid in
                                                                                                            one year
                            Proskauer Rose LLP              12,500 Class B      7/8/99         719199        $625.00


                            iviewit Holdings, Inc.          521,268 Class A     7/8/99         719199     Contribution of
                                                                                                             Patents

                            Zakirul Shirajee                12,500 Class B      7/8/99        7/15/99      To be paid in
                                                                                                             one year                                      (
                                INVESTECH                   30,067 Class A      11/1199     11/17/99      Conversion of
                                Holdings L.L.C (1)                                                            note


               Total Outstanding: 601,335 Membership Units, consisting of
                      551,335 Class A Units
                      50,000 Class B Units


                5063/40017-001 BRUB1/234194v4                                                                                   01/13/00 10:47 AM (2761)




                       -- ' -
~~: :. -~=~:: :.: . -:-_ - -
           !
       I


 ,./
  I
//
                                                      iviewit.com LLC
                                                   Promissory N oteholders



                   N oteholder/Requested         Date Letter   Date Letter      Amount of            Date
                        Amount                      Sent        Received         Check            Promissory
                                                                                Received          Note Mailed

                Simon L. Bernstein $30,000          718199        7113199         $30,000            8123199

                Gerald R. Lewin       $15,000       7/8/99        813199          $15,000            8123199
                Barbara Lewin         $15,000       718199        813199          $15,000            8118199
                Guy Iantoni           $11,790      718199        7/14199          $11,790            8118199
                                      $ 3,210      1018199       10129199         $ 3,210           1115199

                Jill Iantoni          $10,000       718199        7114199         $10,000            8118199
                                      $ 5,000      1018199       10129199         $ 5,000            1115199

                James F. Armstrong $15,000          718199       7/23/99          $15,000            8118199
                                   $ 6,000         9/27 /99     Not Rec'd          N/A                N/A
                Andrew Dietz          $15,000      718199       Not Rec'd          NIA                NIA
                                      $15,000      9/27/99       10/18199        $15,000            10119199
                Donna Dietz            $15,000     718199         1115199        $15,000            1119199
                James A. Osterling $15,000         718/99       Not Rec'd          NIA                NIA
                                   $15,000         9127199      Not Rec'd          NIA                NIA
                                   $15,000         11/9199
                Lisa Friedstein       $15,000       718199       7123199         $15,000            8118199
                                      $15,000      9127199      Not Rec'd          NIA                NIA

                                                                                                                    ~:iiis::s f
                Donald G. Kane, II $22,500         718199        7130199         $22,500            8/18/99
                                                                                                                      /Oi:>/( .
                                                                                                                    J?K

               Note: As indicated in the above chart, Jerry Lewin, on behalf of iviewit.com LLC, has requested
               additional loans (although some loans will be original loans) from Jill Iantoni, Guy Iantoni,
               Andrew Dietz, Lisa Friedstein, James Armstrong and James Osterling.




               5063140017-001 BRUB1 /234202 v3                                           10/19/99 04:10 PM (27611
~




                                                                               iviewit LLC
                                                                    GRANTS OF LLC MEMBERSHIP UNITS


                                             Member           Number of Units   Date Letter   DateLetter   Consideration       Date
                                                                                   Sent       Received       Received         Member
                                                                                                                             Certificate
                                                                                                                              Issued


        (                            New Media Holdings,      12,500 Class B      7/8/99        7/30/99       $625.00
                                     Inc.


                                     Jude Rosario             12,500 Class B      7/8/99        7/15/99     To be paid in
                                                                                                              one year

                                     Proskauer Rose LLP       12,500 Class B      7/8/99        719199        $625.00


                                     iviewit Holdings, Inc.   521,268 Class A     7/8/99        7/9/99     Contribution of
                                                                                                              Patents

                                     Zakirul Shirajee         12,500 Class B      7/8/99        7/15/99     To be paid in
                                                                                                              one year

    (                                INVESTECH                30,067 Class A     1111199      11/17/99     Conversion of
                                     Holdings L.L.C (1)                                                        note



                        Total Outstanding: 601,335 Membership Units, consisting of
                               551,335 Class A Units
                               50,000 Class B Units


                        5063140017-001 BRLIB1 /234194 v4                                                                        01/13/00 10:47 AM (27611




~~ ':·         ,. • :
             ··:._i:.
            ',fj.
··1



                                                              iviewit.com, Inc.
                                                                Stockholders


                             Stockholder         Number of Shares      Percentage     Amount of      Stock Issued
                                                                           of        Consideration
                                                                       Ownership       Received


                        iviewit Technologies,          100            100%          Restructuring    No. 1
      c                 Inc. (transferred from
                        iviewit LLC)




  (




          5<16JJ40017-001 BRLIBl/252473 v1                                                                   01/11/00 12:16 PM (2859)




~
                            "'-../


                                          iviewit.com LLC
                                       Promissory Noteholders


       Noteholder/Requested           Date Letter   Date Letter     Amount of           Date
           Amount                        Sent        Received         Check          Promissory
                                                                     Received        Note Mailed

    Simon L. Bernstein $30,000          118199       1113199          $30,000           8123199
    Gerald R. Lewin       $15,000       718199        813199          $15,000           8123199
    Barbara Lewin         $15,000       718199        813199          $15,000           8118199
    Guy Iantoni           $11,790       718199       7114199          $11,790           8118199
                          $ 3,210       1018199      10129199         $ 3,210           1115199

    Jill Iantoni          $10,000       718199        7114199         $10,000           8118199
                          $ 5,000       1018199      10129199         $ 5,000           1115/99

    James F. Armstrong $15,000          118199       1123199          $15,000           8118199
                       $ 6,000         9127 199     Not Rec'd           NIA               NIA
    Andrew Dietz          $15,000        718199     Not Rec'd           NIA               NIA
                          $15,000       9127199      10/18199         $15,000           10119199

     Donna Dietz           $15,000      718199        1115199         $15,000           1119199

     James A. Osterling $15,000          718199      Not Rec'd          NIA               NIA
                        $15,000         9127199      Not Rec'd          NIA               NIA
                        $15,000         1119199

     Lisa Friedstein       $15,000       7/8199       1123199         $15,000            8/18199
                           $15,000      9127199      Not Rec'd          NIA               NIA
     Donald G. Kane, II    $22,500       7/8/99       7130199         $22,500           8118199




    Note: As indicated in the above chart, Jerry Lewin, on behalf of iviewit.com LLC, has requested
    additional loans (although some loans will be original loans) from Jill Iantoni, Guy Iantoni,
    Andrew Dietz, Lisa Friedstein, James Armstrong and James Osterling.




    5063/40017-001 BRUB 1/234202 v3                                           10/19/99 04:10 PM (2761)




L
                                                                                                                                          ~
                                                          uview.com, Inc.
                                                        GRANTS OF STOCK


                       Shareholder       Number and Class of       Date Letter   Date Letter     Amount of           Stock Issued
                                              Shares                  Sent       Received 1     Consideration
                                                                                                  Received


                  Eliot I. Bernstein    193,200 Class A Common       7/7/99         7/8/99     Contribution of       1-A
)                                       Issued in Error/Canceled                                  Patents
                 Eliot I. Bernstein     11,320 Class A Common                                  Contribution of       6-A
                                                                                                   Patents
                  Simon L Bernstein     5,3 5 0 Class A Common                                    $5, 175.00         7-A


                 The Joshua Bernstein   2,415 Class B Common         7/7/99        7122199     Contribution of       1-B
                 1999 Trust                                                                    Patents by EB
                 The Jacob Bernstein    2, 415 Class B Common        7/7/99        7/22/99     Contribution of       2-B
                 1999 Trust                                                                    Patents by EB
                 Gerald R. Lewin &      2,000 Class B Common         7/7/99        7/22/99        $1,000.00          3-B
                 Barbara S. Lewin
)                Erika R Lewin          250 Class B Common           717/99        7/22/99         $125.00           4-B
                 Jennifer P. Lewin      250 Class B Common           7/7/99        7/22/99         $125.00           5-B
                 James Osterling        1,250 Class B Common         7/7/99        7/23/99         $625 .00          6-B




    5063/40017-001 BRLIB 1/234178 v4                                                                          11 /19/99 10:07 AM (2859)
                                                                                                                                       ~
                                                           uview.com, Inc.
                                                        GRANTS OF STOCK

                  James Armstrong       12,500 Class B Common         7/7/99     7/13/99        $625.00          7-B
                                        Issued in Error/Canceled
                  James Armstrong       1,750 Class B Common          7/7/99     7/13/99        $875.00           13-B
                  Guy Iantoni           1,250 Class B Common          7/7/99     7/14/99        $625.00          14-B
                  Jill Iantoni          1,250 Class B Common          7/7/99     7/14/99       $625.00            15-B
)                 Andrew Dietz          1,250 Class B Common          7/7/99     7120199       $625.00           8-B
                  Donna Dietz           1,250 Class B Common          7/7/99     7/20/99       $625.00           9-B
                  Patricia Daniels      1,250 Class B Common          7/7/99     7/13/99       $625.00           18-B
                  Bettie Stanger         500 Class B Common           7/7/99     7/22/99   Contribution of       10-B
                                                                                           Patents by EB
                  Lisa Friedstein       2,500 Class B Common          7/7/99     7/30/99       No check          11-B
                  Donald G. K ane, II   1,663 Class B Common          7/7/99     7/30/99       $831. 50          12-B
                  Eliot I. Bernstein    7,500 Class B Common         8/19/99               Contribution of       16-B
                                                                                               Patents
                  Simon L. Bernstein
_)                                      5,000 Class B Common         8/19/99               Paid for as part
                                                                                           of original Class
                                                                                                                 17-B

                                                                                             A issuance
                  Brian Utley           1,713.8 Class B Common       1111/99   12/2/99                           20-B




     5063/40017-001 BRLIB1/234178 v4                                                                      11 /19/99 10:07 AM (28591)




                                                                                                                                       L
                                                                                                                               ~
                                                              uview.com, Inc.
                                                            GRANTS OF STOCK

            uview .com, Inc. Capitalization
            Total Class A and Class B Common Stock issued and outstanding at 9/7/99: 52,126.8
            Total Class A Common Stock issued and outstanding at 9/7 /99: 16,670
            Total Class B Common Stock issued and outstanding at 9/7 /99: 35,456.8


    * Reflects post- reverse stock split share issuances.
)




)




    5063/40017-001 BRLIB1/234178 v4                                                             11 /19/99 10:07 AM   (;~859)




                                                                                                                               f
                                                                                                                               L~
                                                                                                                                       ~
                                                        iviewit LLC
                                             GRANTS OF LLC MEMBERSHIP UNITS


                         Member        Number of Units    Date Letter   Date Letter   Consideration        Date
                                                             Sent       Received        Received         Member
                                                                                                        Certificate
                                                                                                          Issued


                 New Media Holdings,   12,500 Class B        7/8/99       7/30/99        $625,00
)                Inc.


                 Jude Rosario          12,500 Class B        7/8/99       7/15/99      To be paid in
                                                                                         one year

                 Proskauer Rose LLP    12,500 Class B        7/8/99        7/9/99        $625.00


                 uview.com, Inc.       521,268 Class A       7/8/99        7/9/99     Contribution of
                                                                                         Patents
                 Zakirul Shirajee      12,500 Class B        7/8/99       7/15/99      To be paid in
                                                                                         one year

                 INVESTECH             30,067 Class A       11/1/99                   Conversion of
)                Holdings, L.L.C (I)                                                      note


    (1) Total Outstanding Upon Issuance to Investech Holdings, L.L.C. (agreement is currently being negotiated): 601,335




    5063/40017-001 BRLIB 1/234194 v3                                                                        10/28/99 01:47 PM (2761)




                                                                                                                                       L
    ·   ..

                                                                                 2255 Glades Road
                                                                                 Suite 340 West
                                                                                 Boca Raton, FL 33431 -7360
                                                                                 Telephone 561.241.7400        NEW YORK
                                                                                                               LOS ANGELES
                                                                                 Elsewhere In Florida          WASHINGTON
                                                                                 800.432.7746                  NEWARK
             PROSKAUER ROSE LLP                                                  Fax 561.241.7145              PARIS


                                                                                  Mara Lerner Robbins
                                                                                  Attorney At Law
                                                                                  Direct Dial 561.995.4764
                                                                                  mrobbins@proskauer.com




             January 13, 1999

             VIA COURIER
             Rodney H. Bell, Esq.
             Holland & Knight
             701 Brickell Avenue
             Suite 3000
             Miami, Florida 33131

             Re:     Due Diligence Request - iviewit Technologies. Inc. and its affiliates (collectiyely, the
                     "iyiewit Entities"

             Dear Mr. Bell:

             In connection with the proposed purchase of shares of preferred stock ofiviewit Technologies, Inc.
             (t7k/a iviewit Holdings, Inc.) by Alpine Venture Capital Partners, LP, enclosed please find documents
             and information (collectively, "Documents") in response to your Due Diligence Request List (the
             "Request"). For ease of reference, we have organized the Documents to correspond with the
             numbering system set forth on the Request. We have prepared three binders, each of which contain
             Documents for the main iviewit Entities, as well as each of their predecessor (or affiliated) entities.
             In instances where the iviewit Entities had no relevant Documents under the applicable sections of
             the Request, we have left the sections in the binders empty. We will fax to you tomorrow an
             annotated copy of the Request, noting the sections for which there are no applicable Documents.

             We will continue to send you Documents as such becomes available to µs. ·These will include, among
             other things, an updated list of stockholders and members, as applicable, of the current iviewit
             Entities.

             In order to help you more easily understand the relationship of the Documents to the current and
             predecessor iviewit Entities, please note that effective December 30, 1999, iviewit Technologies, Inc.
             (formerly known as iviewit Holdings, Inc.) ("Technologies"), as the sole member of iviewit.com LLC
             ("LLC"), exchanged its membership interests in LLC for 100 shares ofiviewit.com, Inc., a newly
r            organized Delaware corporation ("com, Inc.") (representing all of the issued and outstanding
~
             4706140017-001 BRUB1!1S1627 'Jl                                                 01113{00 03:45 PM {2761}




                                                                                                                          . ..
      PROSKAUER ROSE LLP



I
  c   RodneyH. BeH, Esq.
      January 13, 2000
      Page2


      common stock of com, Inc.). As a result, LLC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of com, Inc.
      Immediately thereafter, effective December 30, 1999, the then majority-owned subsidiary, iviewit
      LLC ("iviewit LLC"), transferred all ofits assets and liabilities (including the 100 shares of com, Inc.)
      to Technologies in exchange for shares of Class A and Class B Common Stock of Technologies. ·The
      holders of iviewit LLC Class A Membership Interests received, on a pro-rata basis, shares of
      Technologies Class A Common Stock and holders of iviewit LLC Class B Membership Interests
      received, on a pro-rata basis, shares of Technologies Class B Common Stock. Thereafter, iviewit
      LLC distributed the shares of Technologies Class A and Class B Common Stock to its members, on
      a pro-rata basis, and based upon the class ofMembership Interests in iviewit LLC then held. For your
      reference, we have also attached to this letter the current structure of the iviewit Entities.

       Once you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed documents and information, please feel free
       to call Rocky Thompson (561.995.4721) or me with any questions you may have.




       Enclosures

       cc:    Brian G. Utley, President and COj)
              Erika R. Lewin, Controller V
              Christopher C. Wheeler, Esq.
              Donald E. "Rocky" Thompson, II, Esq.




       4708/40017-001 BRLIBl/252627 v2                                                 01/13/00 03:45 PM (27611
    ;c,                               CURRENT STRUCTURE


        I
    I
    I                                     uviewit Holdings, Inc.,
                                          a Delaware corporation
    I                                     (f/k/a uview.com, Inc.)

    I                                                Iapprox. 86. 7%
    I

    I                                    iviewit Technologies, Inc.,
                                           a Delaware corporation
    I                                   (f/k/a iviewit Holdings, Inc.)

    I
                                                     I 100%
    I

    I                                        iviewit.com, Inc.,
                                          a Delaware corporation
    1C
                                                     I 100%
                                               iviewit.com LLC,
                                              a Delaware limited
                                               liability company




I

'c
I .
            4710/40017·001 BRLIB1/252842 vl                              01/13/00 03:39PM {11452)


I

~. -
t,T·
                                                                       2255 Glades Road
                                                                       Suite 340 West
                                                                       Boca Raton, FL 33431-7360
                                                                       Telephone 561.241.7400           NEW YORK
                                                                                                        LOS ANGELES
                                                                       Elsewhere in Florida             WASHINGTON
                                                                       800.432.7746                     NEWARK
    PROSKAUER ROSE LLP                                                 Fax 561.241.7145                 PARIS


                                                                        Min Lerner Robbins
                                                                        Attorney At Law

                                                                        Direct Dial 561.995.4764
                                                                        mrobblns@proskauer.com




    January 14, 1999

    VIA FACSIMILE
    Rodney H. Bell, Esq.
    Holland & Knight
    701 Brickell Avenue
    Suite 3000
    Miami, Florida 33131

    Re:    Due Diligence Request - iyiewit Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates (collectiyely, the
           "iviewit Entities"

    Dear Mr. Bell:

    Attached hereto please find a revised chart of the iviewit entities. The name of the parent entity in
    the chart attached to my letter to you dated January 13, 2000 (the "Letter") was incorrectly labeled.
    Additionally, the Letter reflects that Alpine Venture Capital Partners, LP, is commencing a due
    diligence review with respect to a proposed purchase of preferred stock of iviewit Technologies, Inc;
    however, the proper entity should have been reflected as iviewit Holdings, Inc. I apologize for any
    inconvenience this may have caused you.

    I look forward to working with you on this matter.




    Attachment

    cc:     Brian G. Utley, President and COO /
            Erika R. Lewin, Controller
            Christopher C. Wheeler, Esq.
            Donald E . "Rocky" Thompson, II, Esq.
(
v   4708/40017-001 BRUBl/253023 v1                                                  01 /14/00 04:33 PM (2761 l
                                       CURRENT STRUCTURE




                                iviewit Holdings, Inc.,
                                a Delaware corporation
                                (f/k/a uview.com, Inc.)


                                           I   approx. 86.7%


                               iviewit Technologies, Inc.,
                                 a Delaware corporation
                              (f/k/a iviewit Holdings, Inc.)


                                            I   100%


                                   iviewit.com, Inc.,
                                a Delaware corporation


                                            I   100%


                                     iviewit.com LLC,
                                    a Delaware limited
                                      liability company




4710/40017-001   BRLIBl/252842 v1                              01/13/00 03:39PM (11452)
EXHIBIT 28 - EXPOSE CORRUPT COURT ARTICLES
                                     FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2013

 "FORMER INSIDER ADMITS TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPS
          FOR NYS 'ETIDCS BOSSES"'
HTTP://EXPOSECORRUPTCOURTS.BLOGSPOT .COM/2013/01/FORMER-INSIDER-
                   ADMITS-TO-ILLEGAL.HTML




This story is written and posted by McKeown. The article details Obstruction of Justice against

Related Case to this Lawsuit (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. filed by

Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson, Esq. former Attorney at Law for the DDC and an expert

in Attorney at Law Disciplinary complaints. The article details an invasion of privacy against

Anderson to "OBSTRUCT ruSTICE" so outrageous as to completely have prejudiced not only

the Anderson related lawsuit but this Lawsuit and every lawsuit related to Anderson, including

but not limited to the following:


   •   (07cvl1612) Esposito v The State ofNew York, et al,
   •   (08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al,
   •   (08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
   •   (08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
   •   (08cv03305) Carvelv The State of New York, et al, and,
   •   (08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State ofNew York, et al.
   •   (08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
   •   (08 cv 6368) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State ofNew York

Selected Quotes from this story,


"FORMER INSIDER ADMITS TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPS
          FOR NYS "ETIDCS BOSSES
            http :I/exposecorruptcourts .blogspot. com/201310 l/former-insider-admits-to-illegal. html
Evidence was obtained on Thursday, January 24, 2013, confirming the position of a former NYS
attorney ethics committee insider that various illegal actions were employed by New York State
employees to target and/or protect select attorneys.

For purposes of this article, a first in a series, the former insider will be referred to as "The
Cleaner's Man" or "The Man."

                                             The Cleaner

During the wrongful termination case of former Manhattan ethics attorney Christine Anderson, it
was revealed that New York State employees had a nick-name for supervising ethics attorney
Naomi Goldstein. Naomi Goldstein was, "The Cleaner."

                             "Ethics" Retaliation Machine Was Real.

The focus of this initial article concerns the 1st and 2nd judicial department, though the illegal
methods are believed to have been utilized statewide in all 4 judicial departments.

The Cleaner's Man says that he would receive a telephone call from Naomi Goldstein, who
would say, "we have another target, I want to meet you ... " The Man also says that Thomas
Cahill, a former DDC Chief Counsel, and Sherry Cohen, a former Deputy-Chief Counsel, were
knowledgeable of all of Naomi Goldstein's activity with him and his team.

The meetings, he says, were usually at a park or restaurant near the Manhattan Attorney ethics
offices (the "DDC") in lower Manhattan, however he did over time meet Goldstein at his office,
the DDC or in movie theater- a venue picked by Naomi. Goldstein would provide her Man with
the name, and other basic information, so that the Man's team could begin their "investigation."

The Man specifically recalls Naomi Goldstein advising him to "get as much damaging
information as possible on Christine [Anderson]."

The Man says that they then tapped Ms. Anderson's phones, collected ALL "ISP" computer data,
including all emails, and set up teams to surveil Anderson 24/7. The Man says he viewed the
improperly recorded conversations and ISP data, and then personally handed those items over to
Naomi Goldstein.

Anderson should not, however, feel like she was a lone target. According to The Man," .. .. over
125 cases were interfered with .. . ." And there were dozens of "targeted" lawyers, says The
Man,adding, that the actions of his teams were clearly "intentionally obstructing justice."

If Ms. Goldstein had identified the Ethics Committee's newest target as an attorney, it was
quickly qualified with whether the involved lawyer was to be "screwed or UNscrewed."
Unscrewed was explained as when an attorney needed to be "protected" or "saved" even if they
did, in fact, have a major ethics problem.




                                                                                                     II-
                                                                                                     11
The Man has a nice way of explaining his actions, the "authority" to so act and, he says, over 1.5
million documents as proof. .. ..... The U.S. Attorney is aware of The Man and his claims .... "


                                          FEBRUARY 10, 2013

 "UPDATE ON ATTORNEY "ETIDCS" COMMITTEES'
 ILLEGAL WIRETAPS FORMER INSIDER ADMITS TO
    ILLEGAL WIRETAPS FOR "ETHICS" BOSSES."
          http: //exposecorruptcourts. blogspot. com/2013 /02/update-on-attomey -ethics-committees .html



Excerpts from the article,


Evidence was obtained on Thursday, January 24, 2013, confirming the position of a former New
York State attorney ethics committee insider that various illegal actions were employed by New
York State supervising employees to target and/or protect select attorneys.

                                                The Cleaner

Many of the most powerful attorneys in the United States are licensed to practice law in New
York State, and if the business address for that lawyer is located in The Bronx or Manhattan,
legal ethics is overseen by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the "DDC"), a group that
falls under Manhattan's Appellate Division of The NY Supreme Court, First Department.

A few years ago, and during a wrongful termination case involving a former DDC ethics
attorney, Christine Anderson, it was revealed that DDC employees had a nick-name for a
supervising ethics attorney, Naomi Goldstein. "Ethics" Supervising Attorney Naomi Goldstein
was known as "the Cleaner."

                               "Ethics" Retaliation Machine Was Real

There are usually cries of "retaliation" whenever charges of violating regulations of attorney
ethics rules are lodged against a lawyer. However, an investigation of activity at the DDC for a
ten year period reveals starling evidence of routine and improper retaliation, evidence tampering
and widespread coverups.

Importantly, an insider, who says he was involved in the illegal activity, including widespread
wiretapping, has provided the troubling details during recent interviews. He says he supervised
the teams that acted illegally. The insider says that he was Naomi Goldstein's 'man' - The
Cleaner's 'man' - and that he would simply receive a telephone call from Naomi Goldstein, and
who would say, "we have another target, I want to meet you ... " He also says that Thomas
Cahill, a former DDC Chief Counsel, and Sherry Cohen, a former Deputy-Chief Counsel- and




                                                                                                           Z1T · .\,;
                                                                                                           1
                                                                                                            /~1
now in private practice helping lawyers in "ethics" investigations, were part of, and
knowledgeable of, the illegal activity.

The meetings, the insider says, were usually at a park or restaurant near the DDC's lower
Manhattan ethics' offices, however he did over time meet Goldstein at his office, inside the DDC
or in movie theater- a venue picked by Naomi. Goldstein only needed to provide him with the
name and other basic information, so that his team could begin their "investigation."

He specifically recalls Naomi Goldstein advising him to "get as much damaging information as
possible on Christine [Anderson,]" the former DDC staff attorney who had complained that
certain internal files had been gutted of collected evidence.

Naomi's "man" says that they then tapped Ms. Anderson's phones, collected ALL "ISP"
computer data, including all emails, and set up teams to surveil Anderson 24/7.

He says he reviewed the illegally recorded conversations and ISP data, and then personally
handed those items over to Naomi Goldstein.

Attorney Christine Anderson should not, however, feel like she was a lone target. Initially,
Goldstein's "man," indicated that" ... .over 125 [attorney] cases were interfered with .. . ." But a
subsequent and closer review of approximately 1. 5 million documents has revealed that there
may have been many hundreds of attorneys, over the ten-year-period, involved in the DDC's
dirty tricks, focused retaliation and planned coverups.

Previously identified "targeted" lawyers were only numbered in the "dozens," but that was before
the years-old documents were reviewed. In initial interviews, the insider says that ifJ\!Is.
Goldstein had identified the DDC ethics committee's newest target as an attorney, it was quickly
qualified with whether the involved lawyer was to be "screwed or UNscrewed." Unscrewed was
explained as when an attorney needed to be "protected" or "saved" even if they did, in fact, have
a major ethics problem. But targets, it is now revealed, were not always identified as having a
law license.

The DDC insider also says that litigants (most of whom were not attorneys) were also DDC
targets. The on-going document review continues to refresh the memory of the insider, after
initially only remembering names from high-profile cases involving "big-name" attorneys. But
one fact remains constant, says the insider- the actions of his teams were clearly and
"intentionally obstructing justice."



                                WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013

   "JUDGES WERE ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPED, SAYS
                   INSIDER"
          http://exuosecorruptcourts .blogspot. com/2013 /02/judges-were-illegally-wiretapped-says .html




                                                                                                                . r c'.;f,;<, .,.i
                                                                                                                                 ;   '
                                                                                                           ;'                   -!
Not only were attorneys targeted for 24/7 wiretapping of their personal and business phones, but
judges in New York also became victims of the illegal whims of political insiders, according to a
former insider who says he supervised parts of the operation for years.

It was previously reported that evidence was obtained on January 24, 2013 confirming illegal
actions against New York attorneys, including the continuous and illegal wiretapping of their
phones and the complete capture and copying of all internet ISP activity, including email.
CLICK HERE TO SEE BACKGROUND STORY "Former Insider Admits to Illegal Wiretaps
for "Ethics Bosses"

The Manhattan-based attorney ethics committee, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the
"DDC"), a state-run entity that oversees the "ethics" of those who practice law in The Bronx and
Manhattan, has been identified of utilizing the illegal activity- at will, and by whim- to either
target or protect certain attorneys.

One Manhattan supervising ethics attorney, Naomi Goldstein, was identified as a regular
requestor of the illegal tape recordings, and former chief counsel [DEFENDANT] Thomas
Cahill has been described in interviews as being "very involved" to those who were
conducting the illegal activity. Cahill subsequently retired, however New York State-paid
attorney Naomi Goldstein still supervises "ethics" investigations from her Wall Street DDC 2nd
floor office at 61 Broadway. THERE'S MORE TO THIS STORY, see the first 3 judges
identified ...... CLICK HERE TO SEE THE LATEST ETHICSGATE UPDATE



                                WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013

   "JUDGES WERE ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPED, SAYS
                   INSIDER"
              http://ethics gate .blogspot. com/20 13 /02 /judges-were-illegallv-wiretapped-savs. html

Not only were attorneys targeted for 24/7 wiretapping of their personal and business phones, but
judges in New York also became victims of the illegal whims of political insiders, according to a
former insider who says he supervised parts of the operation for years.

It was previously reported that evidence was obtained on January 24, 2013 confirming illegal
actions against New York attorneys, including the continuous and illegal wiretapping of their
phones and the complete capture and copying of all internet ISP activity, including email.
CLICK HERE TO SEE BACKGROUND STORY "Former Insider Admits to Illegal Wiretaps
for "Ethics Bosses"

The Manhattan-based attorney ethics committee, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the
"DDC"), a state-run entity that oversees the "ethics" of those who practice law in The Bronx and
Manhattan, has been identified of utilizing the illegal activity- at will, and by whim- to either
target or protect certain attorneys.

One Manhattan supervising ethics attorney, Naomi Goldstein, was identified as a regular
requestor of the illegal tape recordings, and former chief counsel Thomas Cahill has been
described in interviews as being "very involved" to those who were conducting the illegal
activity. Cahill subsequently retired, however New York State-paid attorney Naomi Goldstein
still supervises "ethics" investigations from her Wall Street DDC 2nd floor office at 61
Broadway.

Ethics gate

According to the source, one New York "ethics" legend, Alan Friedberg, was "very well known"
to those conducting the illegal wiretapping activity. Friedberg, who has become the poster child
for unethical tactics while conducting "ethics" inquiries, appears to have been present in the
various state offices where illegal wiretaps were utilized. Friedberg worked for the New York
State Commission on Judicial Conduct (the "CJC") before running the Manhattan attorney
"ethics" committee as chief counsel for a few years. Friedberg then resurfaced at the CJC, where
he remains today. The CJC investigates ethics complaints of all judges in New York State.

Judges Deserve Justice Too, Unless Political Hacks Decide Otherwise

While court administrators have effectively disgraced most judges with substandard
compensation, it appears that at least the selective enforcement of "ethics" rules, dirty tricks and
retaliation were equally employed on lawyers and judges alike.

According to the insider, targeted judges had their cellphones, homes and court phones
wiretapped- all without required court orders. In addition, according to the source, certain
courtrooms, chambers and robing rooms were illegally bugged.

A quick review of notes from over one million pages of evidence, according to the insider,
reveals that the "black bag jobs" included: NYS Supreme Court Judge, the Hon. Alice
Schlesinger (Manhattan), Criminal Court Judge, the Hon. Shari R. Michels (Brooklyn) and NYS
Supreme Court Judge, the Bernadette Bayne (Brooklyn).

More coming soon ........ sign up for email alerts, at the top of this page ... .... .

CLICK HERE to see, "Top Judicial 'Ethics' Lawyer Settles Lack-of-Sex Lawsuit"



                                     FRIDAY FEBRUARY 15, 2013

       "NY GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO ASKED TO SHUT DOWN JUDICIAL
                         "ETHICS" OFFICES."

              http://ethics gate. blogspot. com/201 3/02/ny-governor-andrew-cuomo-asked-to-shut.html
Selected Quotes from that story,


New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has been formally requested to immediately shut
down the offices of The Commission on Judicial Conduct (the "CJC"), the state agency charged
with overseeing the ethics of all judges in the Empire State. The request comes from a public
integrity group after confirmation that the CIC has been involved in illegally wiretapping and
other illegal "black bag operations" for years.

Governor Cuomo is asked to send New York State Troopers to close and secure the state's three
judicial ethics offices: the main office on the 12th floor at 61 Broadway in Manhattan, the capital
office in Albany at the Coming Tower in the Empire State Plaza, and the northwest regional
office at 400 Andrews Street in Rochester.

The Governor is asked to telephone the Assistant United States Attorney who is overseeing the
millions of items of evidence, most of which that has been secreted from the public- and the
governor- by a federal court order.

Governor Cuomo was provided with the direct telephone number of the involved federal
prosecutor, and simply requested to confirm that evidence exists that certain state employees in
New York's so-called judicial "ethics" committee illegally wiretapped state judges.

The request to the governor will be posted at www.ethicsgate.com later today. (Media inquiries
can be made to 202-374-3680.)



                                FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2013

       "SEE THE LETTER TO NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO RE:
                        WIRETAPPING JUDGES ... "

                         CLICK HERE TO SEE THE LETTER, AT

     HTTP://ETHICSGATE.BLOGSPOT.COM/2013/02/LETTER-TO-NEW-YORK-
                      GOVERNOR-ANDREW .HTML "


Selected quotes from that article and the letter to Cuomo,

       Friday, February 15, 2013
       Letter to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Re: Wiretapping Judges
       The letter was delivered to the Governor's Manhattan and Albany offices:
       Reforrn2013. com
       [**REDACTED**]
       202-374-3680 tel
       202-827-9828 fax
  [**REDACTED**]


  February 15, 2013

  The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo,
  Governor of New York State
  NYS Captiol Building
  Albany, New York 12224     [**REDACTED**]
  [**REDACTED**]
  [**REDACTED**]


  RE: ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING OF JUDGES BY THE COMMISSION ON
  JUDICIAL CONDUCT

  Dear Governor Cuomo


  I respectfully request that you telephone Assistant U.S. Attorney [**REDACTED**]
  and ask whether there is any credible evidence in the millions of documents, currently
  under court seal in case# [**REDACTED**] regarding the illegal wiretapping of New
  York State judges and attorneys [**REDACTED**]

  I believe you will quickly confirm that certain NYS employees at the judicial and
  attorney "ethics" committees routinely directed such "black bag operations" by grossly
  and illegally abusing their access to [**REDACTED**]

  New York judges and lawyers, and obviously the public, deserve immediate action to
  address the widespread corruption in and about the state's so-called "ethics" oversight
  entities. According, it is requested that you temporarily shut down and secure New
  York's "ethics" offices and appoint, by executive order, an Ethics Commission to
  investigate, etc.

  Please take immediate action regarding this vital issue, and so as to continue your efforts
  to help all New Yorkers restore their faith in their government. [**REDACTED**]

  cc: Assistant U.S . Attorney [**REDACTED**]
  The Hon. [**REDACTED**]
  [**REDACTED**]


                         TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2013

      "ETHICSGATE UPDATE FAXED TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR
WWW.ETHICSGATE.COM "THE ULTIMATE VIOLATION OF TRUST IS THE
   CORRUPTION OF ETHICS OVERSIGHT" EXCLUSIVE UPDATE"
            http ://ex posecorruptcourts. blogspot. com/2013 /02/ethicsgate-update-faxed-to -everv-us.html

Tuesday, February 19, 2013 --- New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo asked to shut down

judicial "Ethics" offices after evidence reveals illegal wiretapping of judges - Andrew Cuomo

was formally requested on Friday, February 15, 2013 to shut down the NYS Commission on

Judicial Conduct, the state agency charged with overseeing the ethics of all non-federal judges in

the Empire State. Governor Cuomo will confirm with federal prosecutors that a case, where

millions of documents are held under seal, contains evidence of widespread "black bag

operations" that advanced, over more than a decade, knowingly false allegations against targets

while protecting favored insiders, including Wall Street attorneys .... See the full story at:

www.ethicsgate.com' '



                                   THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013

     "NEW YORK SENATORS ASKED TO APPOINT ETHICS CORRUPTION
  LIAISON ... EVERY NEW YORK STATE SENATOR HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO
      APPOINT AN "ETHICS CORRUPTION LIAISON" SO THAT TIMELY
 INFORMATION IN THE EVER-GROWING SCANDAL INSIDE NEW YORK'S SO-
CALLED "ETHICS" ENTITIES MAY BE PROVIDED TO EACH STATE SENATOR."

            http ://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot. com/2013 /02/new-v ork-senators-asked-to-appoint.html



        Reforrn2013.com
        Ethicsgate.com
        February 28, 2013
        Via Facsimile [as noted below]


        RE: Illegal Wiretapping of NYS Judges and Attorneys by "Ethics" Entities

        Dear Senator,

        On February 15, 2013, we formally requested that Governor Cuomo contact the Assistant
        U.S. Attorney handling a sensitive federal case wherein credible evidence, in the millions
        of documents currently under court seal, support the allegation of the widespread illegal
        wiretapping of New York State judges and attorneys over at least the last ten years. In
        addition, other individuals- unrelated to that sealed federal matter- allege the exact same
        illegal activity.
The illegal wiretapping is alleged to have been directed by named senior personnel (and
NYS employees) at the Commission on Judicial Conduct (the "CJC") and by at least two
of the state's 4 judicial departments' attorney ethics committees.

We are, of course, confident that Governor Cuomo is taking decisive action regarding
these troubling allegations, and we are now requesting that you, as a New York State
Senator, begin a comprehensive review of the troubling issues.

As we are all aware, certain corrupt forces in New York have caused tremendous damage
to the very soul of this great state. Now, the improper actions have accomplished the
"ultimate corruption" - they have compromised and corrupted New York's so-called
"ethics oversight" entities.

New York judges and lawyers, and obviously the public, deserve immediate action to
address the widespread corruption in and about the state's so-called "ethics" oversight
entities. (Additional information is available at www.Reform2013 .com)

Accordingly, it is requested that you direct someone in your office to act as the liaison
regarding this Ethics Corruption, and that he or she be in contact with us so that we may
best communicate information to your office. Please have your designee contact us at
their earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Reforrn2013
                              WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2013

FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST NYS EMPLOYEES FOR ILLEGAL
WIRETAPPING ...THE WIDESPREAD ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING INCLUDED
    TARGETED NEW YORK STATE JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS .....

    http :I/exposecorruptcourts _
                                blogspot com/2 0 13 /04/fonnal -comp lain t-filed-against-nvs .html


 Reform2013.com
 P.O. Box 3493
 New York, New York 10163
 202-374-3680 tel
 202-827-9828 fax

                                                                        April 3, 2013

 Robert Moossy, Jr., Section Chief
 Criminal Section, Civil Rights Division
 US Department of Justice      via facsimile# 202-514-6588
 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 Washington, D. C. 20530

 RE: Formal Complaint Against New York State Employees Involving
 Constitutional Violations, including widespread illegal wiretapping


 Dear Mr. Moossy,

 In researching and reporting on various acts of corruption in and about the New York
 State Court System, specific reviewed evidence supports allegations that over a ten-year-
 plus period of time, certain NYS employees participated in the widespread practice of
 illegal wiretapping, inter aha. As these individuals were in supervisory positions at
 "ethics oversight" committees, the illegal wiretapping largely concerned attorneys and
 judges, but their actions also targeted other individuals who had some type of dealings
 with those judicial and attorney "ethics" committees.

 The NY state-employed individuals herein complained of include New York State
 admitted attorneys Thomas Joseph Cahill, Alan Wayne Friedberg, Sherry Kruger Cohen,
 David Spokony and Naomi Freyda Goldstein.



 At some point in time shortly after 9/11, and by methods not addressed here, these
 individuals improperly utilized access to, and devices of, the lawful operations of the
 Joint Terrorism Task Force (the "JTTF"). These individuals completely violated the
 provisions ofFISA, ECPA and the Patriot Act for their own personal and political
agendas. Specifically, these NY state employees essentially commenced "black bag
operations," including illegal wiretapping, against whomever they chose- and without
legitimate or lawful purpose.

To be clear, any lawful act involving the important work of the ITTF is to be applauded.
The herein complaint simply addresses the unlawful access- and use- of JTTF related
operations for the personal and political whims of those who improperly acted under the
color of law. Indeed, illegally utilizing JTTF resources is not only illegal, it is a complete
insult to those involved in such important work.

In fact, hard-working and good-intentioned prosecutors and investigators (federal and
state) are also victims here, as they were guided and primed with knowingly false
information.

Operations involving lawful activity- and especially as part of the important work of the
JTTF and related agencies- are not at issue here. This complaint concerns the illegal use
and abuse of such lawful operations for personal and political gain, and all such activity
while acting under the color oflaw. This un-checked access to highly-skilled operatives
found undeserving protection for some connected wrong-doers, and the complete
destruction of others- on a whim, including the pre-prosecution priming of falsehoods
("set-ups"). The aftermath of such abuse for such an extended period of time is
staggering.

It is believed that most of the 1.5 million-plus items in evidence now under seal in
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York, case #09cr405 (EDNY)
supports the fact, over a ten-year-plus period of time, of the illegal wiretapping of New
York State judges, attorneys, and related targets, as directed by state employees.

To be sure, the defendant in #09cr405 , Frederick Celani, is a felon who is now regarded
by many as a conman. Notwithstanding the individual (Celani), the evidence is clear that
Celani once supervised lawful "black bag operations," and, further, that certain NYS
employees illegally utilized access to such operations for their own illegal purposes.
(Simple reference is made to another felon, the respected former Chief Judge of the New
York State Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, who many believe was victimized by
political pre-priming prosecution.)

In early February, 2013, I personally reviewed, by appropriate FOIL request to a NYS
Court Administrative Agency, over 1000 documents related to the herein complaint.
Those documents, and other evidence, fully support Celani's claim of his once-lawful
supervisory role in such ITTF operations, and his extended involvement with those
herein named. (The names of specific targeted judges and attorneys are available.)

One sworn affidavit, by an attorney, confirms the various illegal activity of Manhattan's
attorney "ethics" committee, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the "DDC"),
which includes allowing cover law firm operations to engage in the practice of law
without a law license. Specifically, evidence (attorney affidavits, etc.) supports the claim
that Naomi Goldstein, and other DDC employees supervised the protection of the




                                                                                                 '·
                                                                                                       1
                                                                                                       ·
                                                                                                      1> >:· .
                                                                                                      i .(
                                                                                                             .   .   ~.   ~
unlicensed practice of law. The evidence also shows that Ms. Goldstein knowingly
permitted the unlicensed practice of law, over a five-year-plus period of time, for the
purpose of gaining access to, and information from, hundreds of litigants.

Evidence also supports the widespread illegal use of "black bag operations" by the NYS
employees for a wide-range of objectives: to target or protect a certain judge or attorney,
to set-up anyone who had been deemed to be a target, or to simply achieve a certain goal.
The illegal activity is believed to not only have involved attorneys and judges throughout
all of the New York State, including all 4 court-designated ethics "departments," but also
in matters beyond the borders of New York.

Other evidence points to varying and widespread illegal activity, and knowledge of such
activity, by these and other NYS employees - all of startling proportions. For example:

•   The "set-up" of numerous individuals for an alleged plot to bomb a Riverdale, NY
    Synagogue. These individuals are currently incarcerated. The trial judge, U.S.
    District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who publicly expressed concerns over the
    case, saying, "I have never heard anything like the facts of this case. I don't think any
    other judge has ever heard anything like the facts of this case." (2nd Circuit
    llcr2763)
•   The concerted effort to fix numerous cases where confirmed associates of organized
    crime had made physical threats upon litigants and/or witnesses, and/or had financial
    interests in the outcome of certain court cases.
•   The judicial and attorney protection/operations, to gain control, of the $250 million-
    plus Thomas Carvel estate matters, and the pre-prosecution priming of the $150
    million-plus Brooke Astor estate.
•   The thwarting of new evidence involving a mid l 990's "set-up" of an individual, who
    spent over 4 years in prison because he would not remain silent about evidence he
    had involving financial irregularities and child molestation by a CEO of a prominent
    Westchester, NY non-profit organization. (Hon. John F. Keenan)
•   The wire-tapping and ISP capture, etc., ofDDC attorney, Christine C. Anderson, who
    had filed a lawsuit after being assaulted by a supervisor, Sherry Cohen, and after
    complaining that certain evidence in ethics case files had been improperly destroyed.
    (See SDNY case #07cv9599 - Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J.)
•   The eToys litigation and bankruptcy, and associates of Marc Dreir, involving over
    $500 million and the protection by the DDC of certain attorneys, one who was found
    to have lied to a federal judge over 15 times.
•   The "set-up" and "chilling" of effective legal counsel of a disabled woman by a
    powerful CEO and his law firms, resulting in her having no contact with her children
    for over 6 years.
•   The wrongful detention for 4 years, prompted by influential NY law firms, of an early
    whistleblower of the massive Wall Street financial irregularities involving Bear
    Stems and where protected attorney-client conversations were recorded and
    distributed.
•   The blocking of attorney accountability in the $1.25 billion Swiss Bank Holocaust
    Survivor settlement where one involved NY admitted attorney was ultimately
             disbarred- in New Jersey. Only then, and after 10 years, did the DDC follow with
             disbarment. (Gizella Weisshaus v. Fagan)

             Additional information will be posted on www.Reform2013.com

       The allegations of widespread wiretapping by New York's so-called "ethics" committees
       were relayed to New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo on February 15, 2013, and to
       the DDC Chairman Mr. Roy R. L. Reardon, Esq., who confirmed, on March 27, 2013, his
       knowledge of the allegations. (Previously, on March 25, 2013, I had written to DDC
       Deputy Chief Counsel Naomi Goldstein, copying Mr. Reardon, of my hope that she
       would simply tell the truth about the improper activity, inter alia.)

       New York judges and lawyers, and obviously the public, deserve immediate action to
       address the widespread corruption in and about New York's so-called "ethics" oversight
       entities.

       Please take immediate action regarding this troubling issue, and so as to continue the
       DOJ' s efforts to help all New Yorkers restore their faith in their government.

       cc:

       U.S. Attorney LorettaE. Lynch via facsimile 718-254-6479 and 631-715-7922
       U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Section via facsimile 202-307-1379, 202-514-0212
       The Hon. Arthur D. Spatt, via facsimile 631-712-5626
       The Hon. Colleen McMahon via facsimile 212-805-6326
       Hon. Shira A Scheindlin via facsimile 212-805-7920
       Assistant U.S. Attorney Demetri Jones via facsimile 631-715-7922
       Assistant U.S. Attorney Perry Carbone via facsimile 914-993-1980
       Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan McGuire via 212-637-2615 and 212-637-0016
       FBI SSA Robert Hennigan via facsimile 212-384-4073 and 212-384-4074
       Pending SEC Chair Mary Jo White via facsimile 212-909-6836

Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 2: 11 PM
EXHIBIT 29 - MOTION FOR REHEARING BASED ON FRAUD ON THE
                  COURT AND OBSTRUCTION
UNITED STATES DISRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
                                             x
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, et al.,

                     Plaintiffs,

-against-                                          Case No. 1:07-cv-11196-SAS
                                                   Related Case No. 1:07-cv-09599-SAS
APPELLATE     DIVISION,      FIRST
DEPARTMENT       DEPARTMENTAL                      NOTICE OF MOTION
DISCIPLINARY COM1v11TTEE, et. al.,

                      Defendants.




PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying affirmation and the exhibits, Pro Se

Plaintiff Eliot Ivan Bernstein will move this Court before the Honorable Judge Shira A.

Scheindlin, United States District Judge, at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New

York, New York 10007, at a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an order:


       (1) To rehear and reopen this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) on the

            basis of newly discovered evidence.


       (2) To rehear and reopen this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) for

            fraud on court.


       (3) Immediately secure protection for all Plaintiffs in the related cases, as Plaintiff also

            has had conversations with both the author and source of the Expose Corrupt Courts




                                                                                                      '{ f
   ("ECC") articles referenced herein and Plaintiff believes on information and belief

   that he is one of the "targets" described in the ECC articles describing illegal

   wiretapping, illegal 24/7/365 surveillance (and one must wonder how much this is

   costing and are government funds being used to fund these ILLEGAL ACTIONS

   AGAINST THEIR TARGETS in efforts to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE) and all these

   illegal acts are in efforts according to the inside Whistleblower to "OBSTRUCT

   JUSTICE."


(4) Immediately secure communications of ALL Plaintiffs in the legally related cases to

   Anderson through removal of illegal wiretaps, ceasing misuse of Joint Terrorism Task

   Force resources and violations of the Patriot Act to target individuals illegally, as

   described in the attached articles and secure all documents and records in the

   Plaintiffs lawsuits,


(5) Notify all Federal and State Authorities who have been named in these articles

   exhibited herein of the crimes alleged against members of their State and Federal

   agencies and demand immediate investigation.


(6) Immediately Rehear the Anderson and related lawsuits, removing all prior rulings and

   orders and pleadings by all Conflicted parties, invalidated by the crimes committed

   by those DEFENDANTS, especially STATE DEFENDANTS involved in these

   OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE and demand all Defendants to secure NON

   CONFLICTED LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THEM, one professionally




                                       2
   and one individually and move to GRANT SUMMARY nJDGEMENT IN FAVOR

   OF ALL PLAINTIFFS OF THE LEGALLY RELATED CASES FOR THE CRIMES

   ALREADY COMMITTED UPON THEM TO BLOCK AND OBSTRUCT BOTH

   ANDERSON AND THEIR CASES THROUGH ILLEGAL OBSTRUCTION OF

   JUSTICE DENYING THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED DUE

   PROCESS RIGHTS.


(7) Release to Plaintiffs, all illegal and unwarranted surveillance documentation of any

   nature, including but not limited to, wiretapping evidence, computer record copying

   and altercations, video/audio recordings, billings and payments for surveillance,

   names of all personnel and entities involved in the surveillance and ALL notes,

   reports, summaries from surveillance activities, complete list of emails or any

   communications from both sending parties and receiving parties involved in the

   surveillance, list of all investigatory parties notified of the crimes as indicated in the

   news articles, case numbers for all investigations and who is handling the

   investigations, list of all Grand Juries that have heard evidence in regard to the

   allegations made in the news stories cited herein.


(8) for such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.


   Dated: Boca Raton, FL




                                          3
                                           x   ~~~~~~~~-




                                           Eliot I. Bernstein
                                           2753 NW 34th St.
                                           Beca Raton, FL 33434
                                           (561) 245 -8588

To:   Defendants

      Office of the NYS Attorney General
      120 Broadway, 24th floor
      New York, New York 10271-0332

      and

      APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT AL
      DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants




                                     4
UNITED STATES DISRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                               x
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, et al.,

                       Plaintiffs

-against-                                              Case No. 07cv11196
                                                       Related Case No. 07cv09599
APPELLATE     DIVISION,    FIRST                       AFFIRMATION
DEPARTMENT       DEPARTMENTAL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, et al. ,

                       Defendants.


I, Eliot I. Bernstein, make the following affirmation under penalties of perjury:

I, Eliot I. Bernstein, am the pro se plaintiff in the above entitled action, and respectfully move

this court to issue an order


    1. To rehear and reopen this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) on the

       basis of newly discovered evidence.

   2. To rehear and reopen this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) for fraud

       on court.

    3. Immediately secure protection for all Plaintiffs in the related cases, as Plaintiff also has

       had conversations with both the author and source of the Expose Corrupt Courts ("ECC'')

       articles referenced herein and Plaintiff believes on information and belief that he is one of

       the "targets" described in the ECC articles describing illegal wiretapping, illegal 24/7/365

       surveillance (and one must wonder how much this is costing and are government funds




                                                   5



                                                                                                       f!
   being used to fund these ILLEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THEIR TARGETS in efforts

   to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE) and all these illegal acts are in efforts according to the inside

   Whistleblower to "OBSTRUCT JUSTICE."

4. Immediately secure communications of ALL Plaintiffs in the legally related cases to

   Anderson through removal of illegal wiretaps, ceasing misuse of Joint Terrorism Task

   Force resources and violations of the Patriot Act to target individuals illegally, as

   described in the attached articles and secure all documents and records in the Plaintiffs

   lawsuits,

5. Notify all Federal and State Authorities who have been named in these articles exhibited

   herein of the crimes alleged against members of their State and Federal agencies and

   demand immediate investigation.

6. Immediately Rehear the Anderson and related lawsuits, removing all prior rulings and

   orders and pleadings by all Conflicted parties, invalidated by the crimes committed by

   those   DEFENDANTS,        especially   STATE    DEFENDANTS         involved   in   these

   OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE and demand all Defendants to secure NON

   CONFLICTED LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THEM, one professionally and

   one individually and move to GRANT SUMMARY JUDGEMENT INF AVOR OF ALL

   PLAINTIFFS OF THE LEGALLY RELATED CASES FOR THE CRIMES ALREADY

   COMMITTED UPON THEM TO BLOCK AND OBSTRUCT BOTH ANDERSON

   AND THEIR CASES THROUGH ILLEGAL OBSTRUCTION OF                                 JUSTICE




                                           6



                                                                                               fl
       DENYING THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED DUE PROCESS

       RIGHTS.

   7. Release to Plaintiffs, all illegal and unwarranted surveillance documentation of any

       nature, including but not limited to, wiretapping evidence, computer record copying and

       altercations, video/audio recordings, billings and payments for surveillance, names of all

       personnel and entities involved in the surveillance and ALL notes, reports, summaries

       from surveillance activities, complete list of emails or any communications from both

       sending parties and receiving parties involved in the surveillance, list of all investigatory

       parties notified of the crimes as indicated in the news articles, case numbers for all

       investigations and who is handling the investigations, list of all Grand Juries that have

       heard evidence in regard to the allegations made in the news stories cited herein.

    8. for such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.


The reasons why I am entitled to the relief! seek are the following:



Plaintiff appears in this action "In Propria Persona" and asks that his points and authorities relied

upon herein, and issues raised herein, must be addressed "on the merits" and not simply on his

Pro Se Status.




                                                  7
Oftentimes courts do not take Pro Se Litigants serious. I, Plaintiff Eliot Ivan Bernstein wish to be

taken serious and to not have my allegation dismissed.


"Court errs if court dismisses prose litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient

and how to repair pleadings." Plaskey v CIA, 953 F .2nd 25 . The Court granted such leniency, or

"liberal construction," to prose pleadings against the backdrop of Conley v. Gibson's

undemanding "no set of facts" standard. (See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)

("[A J complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him

to relief."), abrogated by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561-63 (2007). This

standard epitomized the notice-pleading regime envisioned by the drafters of the Federal Rules,

who emphasized discovery as the stage at which a claim's true merit would come to light, rather

than pleading. See Christopher M . Fairman, The Myth of Notice Pleading, 45 ARIZ. L. REV.

987, 990 (2003) ("With merits determination as the goal, the Federal Rules create a new

procedural system that massively deemphasizes the role of pleadings.").


The Court's failure to explain how prose pleadings are to be liberally construed. (See

Bacharach & Entzeroth, supra note 7, at 29-30 (asserting that because the Supreme Court never

defined the "degree of relaxation" afforded pro se pleadings in comparison to the liberal notice

pleading standard applicable to all litigants, lower courts adopted different iterations of the rule).

~   .. indicates its belief that the standard was already lenient enough to render a detailed

articulation of the practice unnecessary to prevent premature dismissal of meritorious cases.




                                                    8
However, with Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ( 550 U.S. 544 (2007). and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (

129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) retiring the "no set of facts" standard and ratifying the means by which

lower courts dismissed more disfavored cases under Conley, (See generally Richard L. Marcus,

The Revival of Fact Pleading Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 86 COLUM. L. REV.

433, 435 -37 (1986) (explaining how the reemergence of fact pleading resulted from lower

courts' refusals to accept conclusory allegations as sufficient under the Federal Rules in

particular categories of suits).


.. liberal construction as presently practiced is not- if it ever was-sufficient to protect pro se

litigants' access to courts. The new plausibility standard (See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570

(requiring a complaint to allege "enough facts to state a claim to reliefthat is plausible on its

face") .. with which courts now determine the adequacy of complaints disproportionately harms

pro se litigants. ( See Patricia W. Hatamyar, The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal

Matter Empirically?, 59 AM. U. L. REV. 553, 615 (20 IO) (observing a substantially greater

increase in the rate of dismissal of pro se suits than represented suits post-Iqbal).


"Prose complaint[s], 'however inartfully pleaded,' [are] held to 'less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam)).


HAINES v. KERNER, ET AL. 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652. Whatever may be

the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations

such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the




                                                   9
opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the

allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts

in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F .2d 774 (CA2 1944).


ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. GAMBLE 29 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L.

Ed. 2d 251. We now consider whether respondent's complaint states a cognizable 1983 claim.

The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a prose complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must

be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be

dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no

set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id., at 520-521, quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)


BALDWIN COUNTY WELCOME CENTER v. BROWN 466 U.S. 147, 104 S. Ct. 1723, 80 L.

Ed. 2d 196, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751. Rule 8(f) provides that" pleadings shall be so construed as to do

substantial justice." We frequently have stated that prose pleadings are to be given a liberal

construction.


UGHES v. ROWE ET AL. 449 U.S. 5, 101 S. Ct. 173, 66 L. Ed. 2d 163, 49 U.S .L.W. 3346.

Petitioner's complaint, like most prisoner complaints filed in the Northern District of Illinois, was

not prepared by counsel. It is settled law that the allegations of such a complaint, "however




                                                 10


                                                                                                        fi
inartfully pleaded" are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,

see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 86

(CA7 1980); French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994, 996 (CA71976). Such a complaint should not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove

no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines, supra, at 520-

521. And, of course, the allegations of the complaint are generally taken as true for purposes of a

motion to dismiss. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).


Both the right to proceed pro se and liberal pleading standards reflect the modem civil legal

system's emphasis on protecting access to courts. (See, e.g., Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515

F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008) ("Few issues ... are more significant than pleading standards,

which are the key that opens access to courts."); Drew A Swank, In Defense of Rules and Roles:

The Need to Curb Extreme Forms of Pro Se Assistance and Accommodation in Litigation, 54

AM. U. L. REV. 1537, 1546 (2005) (noting that "(oJpen access to the courts for all citizens" is

one of the principles upon which the right to prosecute one's own case is founded).


Self-representation has firm roots in the notion that all individuals, no matter their status or

wealth, are entitled to air grievances for which they may be entitled to relief. ( See Swank, supra

note 1, at 1546 (discussing the importance of self-representation to the fundamental precept of

equality before the law).


Access, then, must not be contingent upon retaining counsel, lest the entitlement become a mere

privilege denied to certain segments of society. Similarly, because pleading is the gateway by




                                                  11
which litigants access federal courts, the drafters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

purposefully eschewed strict sufficiency standards. (See Proceedings of the Institute on Federal

Rules (1938) (statement of Edgar Tolman), reprinted in RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR

THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES 301-13 (William W. Dawson ed., 1938).


In their place, the drafters instituted a regime in which a complaint quite easily entitled its author

to discovery in order to prevent dismissal of cases before litigants have had an adequate

opportunity to demonstrate their merit. (See Mark Herrmann, James M. Beck & Stephen B.

Burbank, Debate, Plausible Denial: Should Congress Overrule Twombly and Iqbal? 158 U. PA.

L. REV PENNUMBRA 141, 148 (2009), (Burbank, Rebuttal) (asserting that the drafters of the

Federal Rules objected to a technical pleading regime because it would "too often cut[] off

adjudication on the merits").


Recognizing that transsubstantive pleading standards do not sufficiently account for the

capability differential between represented and unrepresented litigants, the Supreme Court

fashioned a rule of special solicitude for pro se pleadings. ( See Robert Bacharach & Lyn

Entzeroth, Judicial Advocacy in Pro Se Litigation: A Return to Neutrality, 42 IND. L.REV. 19,

22-26 (2009) (noting that courts created ways to ensure that meritorious prose suits would not be

dismissed simply because the litigants lacked legal knowledge and experience, one of which was

liberal construction).


Far from just articulating a common systemic value, though, the right to prosecute one's own

case without assistance of counsel in fact depends significantly upon liberal pleading standards. (




                                                  12
Cf. Charles E. Clark, The New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The Last Phase- Underlying

Philosophy Embodied in Some of the Basic Provisions of the New Procedure, 23 AB.A. J. 976,

97 6-77 ( 193 7) (commenting that liberal pleading rules were necessary to mitigate information

asymmetries between plaintiffs and defendants that often led to premature dismissal of suits).


Notably, in no suits are such information asymmetries more apparent than those in which prose

litigants sue represented adversaries. These types of suits comprise the vast majority in which

prose litigants appear. Cf. Jonathan D. Rosenbloom, Exploring Methods to Improve

Management and Fairness in Pro Se Cases: A Study of the Pro Se Docket in the Southern

District of New York, 30 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 305, 323 (showing that the majority of prose

cases involve unrepresented plaintiffs who sue governmental defendants).


Plaintiff appears in this action "In Propria Persona" and asks that his points and authorities relied

upon herein, and issues raised herein, must be addressed "on the merits", Sanders v United

States, 373 US 1, at 16, 17 (1963); and addressed with "clarity and particularity", McCleskey v

Zant, 111 S. Ct. 1454, at 1470-71 (1991); and afforded" a full and fair" evidentiary hearing,

Townsend v Sain, 372 U.S.293, at p. l (1962). See also Pickering v Pennsylvania Railroad Co.,

151F.2d240 (3d Cir. 1945).


Pleadings of the Plaintiff SHALL NOT BE dismissed for lack of form or failure of process. All

the pleadings are as any reasonable man/woman would understand, and: "And be it further

enacted. That no summons, writ, declaration, return, process, judgment, or other proceedings in

civil cases in any of the courts or the United States, shall be abated, arrested, quashed or




                                                  13

                                                                                                        {1
reversed, for any defect or want of form, but the said courts respectively shall proceed and give

judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto them, without

regarding any imperfections, defects or want of form in such writ, declaration, or other pleading,

returns process, judgment, or course of proceeding whatsoever, except those only in cases of

demurrer, which the party demurring shall specially sit down and express together with his

demurrer as the cause thereof.


And the said courts respectively shall and may, by virtue of this act, from time to time, amend all

and every such imperfections, defects and wants of form, other than those only which the party

demurring shall express as aforesaid, and may at any, time, permit either of the parties to amend

any defect in the process of pleadings upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall

in their discretion, and by their rules prescribe (a)" Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Section

342, FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. 1, ch. 20, 1789.




Plaintiff appears in this action "In Propria Persona" and asks that his points and authorities relied

upon herein, and issues raised herein, must be addressed "on the merits", Sanders v United

States, 373 US 1, at 16, 17 (1963); and addressed with "clarity and particularity", McCleskey v

Zant, 111 S. Ct. 1454, at 1470-71 (1991); and afforded" a full and fair" evidentiary hearing,

Townsend v Sain, 372 U.S.293, at p. l (1962). See also Pickering v Pennsylvania Railroad Co.,

151 F .2d 240 (3 d Cir. 1945).




                                                 14
Pleadings of the Plaintiff SHALL NOT BE dismissed for lack of form or failure of process. All

the pleadings are as any reasonable man/woman would understand, and:


"And be it further enacted. That no summons, writ, declaration, return, process, judgment, or

other proceedings in civil cases in any of the courts or the United States, shall be abated,

arrested, quashed or reversed, for any defect or want of form, but the said courts respectively

shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall

appear unto them, without regarding any imperfections, defects or want of form in such writ,

declaration, or other pleading, returns process, judgment, or course of proceeding whatsoever,

except those only in cases of demurrer, which the party demurring shall specially sit down and

express together ivith his demurrer as the cause thereof And the said courts respectively shall

and may, by virtue of this act, from time to time, amend all and every such imperfections, defects

and wants of form, other than those only which the party demurring shall express as aforesaid,

and may at any , time, permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process of pleadings

upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion, and by their rules

prescribe (a)" Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Section 342, FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. 1,

ch. 20, 1789.


"Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient

and how to repair pleadings." Plaskey v CIA, 953 F .2nd 25


HAINES v. KERNER, ET AL. 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652. Whatever may be

the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations




                                                                                                        '{/
                                                  15
such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the

opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the

allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts

in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).


ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. GAMBLE 29 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L.

Ed. 2d 251. We now consider whether respondent's complaint states a cognizable 1983 claim.

The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a prose complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must

be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be

dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no

set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id., at 520-521, quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)


BALDWIN COUNTY WELCOME CENTER v. BROWN 466 U.S. 147, 104 S. Ct. 1723, 80 L.

Ed. 2d 196, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751. Rule 8(f) provides that" pleadings shall be so construed as to do

substantial justice." We frequently have stated that pro se pleadings are to be given a liberal

construction.


UGHES v. ROWE ET AL. 449 U.S. 5, 101 S. Ct. 173, 66 L. Ed. 2d 163, 49 U.S.L.W. 3346.

Petitioner's complaint, like most prisoner complaints filed in the Northern District of Illinois, was




                                                  16
not prepared by counsel. It is settled law that the allegations of such a complaint, "however

inartfully pleaded" are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,

see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 86

(CA 7 1980); French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994, 996 (CA7 1976). Such a complaint should not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove

no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines, supra, at 520-

521. And, of course, the allegations of the complaint are generally taken as true for purposes of a

motion to dismiss. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).


Both the right to proceed pro se and liberal pleading standards reflect the modem civil legal

system's emphasis on protecting access to courts. (See, e.g., Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515

F3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008) ("Few issues ... are more significant than pleading standards,

which are the key that opens access to courts."); Drew A. Swank, In Defense of Rules and Roles:

The Need to Curb Extreme Forms of Pro Se Assistance and Accommodation in Litigation, 54

AM. U. L. REV. 1537, 1546 (2005) (noting that "[o]pen access to the courts for all citizens" is

one of the principles upon which the right to prosecute one's own case is founded).


Self-representation has firm roots in the notion that all individuals, no matter their status or

wealth, are entitled to air grievances for which they may be entitled to relief. (See Swank, supra

note 1, at 1546 (discussing the importance of self-representation to the fundamental precept of

equality before the law).




                                                  17
Access, then, must not be contingent upon retaining counsel, lest the entitlement become a mere

privilege denied to certain segments of society. Similarly, because pleading is the gateway by

which litigants access federal courts, the drafters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

purposefully eschewed strict sufficiency standards. (See Proceedings of the Institute on Federal

Rules (1938) (statement of Edgar Tolman), reprinted in RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR

THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES 301-13 (William W. Dawson ed., 1938).

In their place, the drafters instituted a regime in which a complaint quite easily entitled its author

to discovery in order to prevent dismissal of cases before litigants have had an adequate

opportunity to demonstrate their merit. (See Mark Herrmann, James M. Beck & Stephen B.

Burbank, Debate, Plausible Denial: Should Congress Overrule Twombly and Iqbal? 158 U. PA

L. REV. PENNUMBRA 141, 148 (2009), ttp://pennumbra.corn/debates/pdfs/PlausibleDenial.pdf

(Burbank, Rebuttal) (asserting that the drafters of the Federal Rules objected to a technical

pleading regime because it would "too often cut[] off adjudication on the merits").


Recognizing that transsubstantive pleading standards do not sufficiently account for the

capability differential between represented and unrepresented litigants, the Supreme Court

fashioned a rule of special solicitude for pro se pleadings. ( See Robert Bacharach & Lyn

Entzeroth, Judicial Advocacy in Pro Se Litigation: A Return to Neutrality, 42 IND. L.REV. 19,

22-26 (2009) (noting that courts created ways to ensure that meritorious pro    ~e   suits would not be

dismissed simply because the litigants lacked legal knowledge and experience, one of which was

liberal construction).




                                                  18
                                                                                                               ·
                                                                                                          ,. -"~>' :.·.':.:.
                                                                                                           .
                                                                                                               ...   t' .
                                                                                                                            .
                                                                                                                                    .




                                                                                                           .                    .
Far from just articulating a common systemic value, though, the right to prosecute one's own

case without assistance of counsel in fact depends significantly upon liberal pleading standards. (

Cf. Charles E . Clark, The New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The Last Phase- Underlying

Philosophy Embodied in Some of the Basic Provisions of the New Procedure, 23 AB.A. J. 976,

97 6-77 (193 7) (commenting that liberal pleading rules were necessary to mitigate information

asymmetries between plaintiffs and defendants that often led to premature dismissal of suits).

Notably, in no suits are such information asymmetries more apparent than those in which pro se

litigants sue represented adversaries. These types of suits comprise the vast majority in which

prose litigants appear. Cf. Jonathan D. Rosenbloom, Exploring Methods to Improve

Management and Fairness in Pro Se Cases: A Study of the Pro Se Docket in the Southern

District of New York, 30 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 305, 323 (showing that the majority of prose

cases involve unrepresented plaintiffs who sue governmental defendants).


"Pro se complaint[ s], 'however inartfully pleaded,' [are] held to 'less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S . 97, 106 (1976) (quoting

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam)).


The Court granted such leniency, or "liberal construction," to prose pleadings against the

backdrop of Conley v. Gibson's undemanding "no set of facts" standard. ( See Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) ("[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim

unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief."), abrogated by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,




                                                 19
561-63 (2007). This standard epitomized the notice-pleading regime envisioned by the drafters

of the Federal Rules, who emphasized discovery as the stage at which a claim's true merit would

come to light, rather than pleading. See Christopher M. Fairman, The Myth of Notice Pleading,

45 ARIZ. L. REV. 987, 990 (2003) ("With merits determination as the goal, the Federal Rules

create a new procedural system that massively deemphasizes the role of pleadings.").


The Court's failure to explain how prose pleadings are to be liberally construed. (See

Bacharach & Entzeroth, supra note 7, at 29-30 (asserting that because the Supreme Court never

defined the "degree of relaxation" afforded pro se pleadings in comparison to the liberal notice

pleading standard applicable to all litigants, lower courts adopted different iterations of the rule).

~   .. indicates its belief that the standard was already lenient enough to render a detailed

articulation of the practice unnecessary to prevent premature dismissal of meritorious cases.

However, with Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ( 550 U.S. 544 (2007). and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (

129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) retiring the "no set of facts" standard and ratifying the means by which

lower courts dismissed more disfavored cases under Conley, (See generally Richard L. Marcus,

The Revival of Fact Pleading Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedwe, 86 COLUM. L. REV.

433, 435-37 (1986) (explaining how the reemergence of fact pleading resulted from lower

courts' refusals to accept conclusory allegations as sufficient under the Federal Rules in

particular categories of suits) .


.. liberal construction as presently practiced is not-if it ever was-sufficient to protect pro se

litigants' access to courts. The new plausibility standard (See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570




                                                   20
(requiring a complaint to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face") .. with which courts now determine the adequacy of complaints disproportionately harms

pro se litigants. ( See Patricia W. Hatamyar, The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal

Matter Empirically?, 59 AM. U. L. REV. 553, 615 (2010) (observing a substantially greater

increase in the rate of dismissal of prose suits than represented suits post-Iqbal).


First, the Supreme Court's instruction that "conclusory" facts not be presumed true when

determining a claim's plausibility ( See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951 ("[T]he allegations are

conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true."); Hatamyar, supra note 15, at 579 ("Iqbal invites

judges to ... eliminate from consideration all the complaint's conclusory allegations .. .. ").The

parsing of a complaint into conclusory and nonconclusory factual allegations disregards the

Federal Rules' express disavowal of fact pleading, along with their requirement that all facts be

presumed true when determining the adequacy of a complaint. See, e.g., Stephen B. Burbank,

Pleading and the Dilemmas of 1\fodem American Procedure, 93 JUDICATURE 109, 115 (2009)

(noting that the drafters of the Federal Rules rejected fact pleading because of the impossibility

of distinguishing between conclusions and facts); Hatamyar, supra note 15, at 563 (discussing

courts' obligations to credit as true all factual allegations in a complaint). This will affect those

who (1) lack the resources to develop facts before discovery, (2) bring claims requiring them to

plead information exclusively within the opposition's possession, or (3) rely on forms in drafting

complaints.


Pro se litigants typify the parties who demonstrate all three behaviors.




                                                  21
Second, determining whether the remaining allegations permit a plausible inference of

wrongdoing, as per the Supreme Court's instruction, (See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 ("When there

are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief"). is a wildly subjective endeavor.

Courts are likely-no doubt unintentionally- to draw inferences that disfavor pro se litigants

because their "judicial common sense" judgments of what is plausible result from a drastically

different set of background experiences and values. ( 8 Cf. Burbank, supra note 16, at 118

(suggesting that reliance on "judicial experience and common sense,'' Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950,

invites "cognitive illiberalism," a phenomenon that negatively affects classes of disfavored

litigants). ..


The mixture of these two steps portends serious trouble for pro se litigants, who, even before the

plausibility standard, did not fare well despite the leeway afforded their complaints.


(See Hatamyar, supra note 15, at 615 (noting that, under Conley, courts dismissed sixty-seven

percent of pro se cases).




Pro Se litigants are entitled to liberality in construing their pleading.


Non-Lawyer prose litigants are not to be held to same standards as a practicing lawyer.




                                                   22
"Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are to be

considered without regard to technicalities. Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high

standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Set 594, also See Power

914 F2d 1459 (I Ith


Cirl990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v.

BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."


In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one

drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill

in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the

purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP

and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial

justice."


I. INTRODUCTION

    9. That on or about               2007-2008, Plaintiff was contacted by an "Investigative

        Reporter" and former Government Employee, Frank Brady, who later became known as

        Kevin McKeown ("McKeown"), who later became a "Related Lawsuit" to this Lawsuit,

        Case No. 08cv02391 McKeown v The State of New York, et al., who later it was learned

        was a former employee for Defendant NY Supreme Court Departmental Disciplinary

        Committee, who later it was learned has friends in this Court.




                                                 23
10. That initially McKeown stated to Plaintiff and others that he had information regarding

   complaints being mishandled at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First

   Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee ("DDC") by Chief Counsel of the

   DDC, Thomas Cahill and others. McKeown stated he would be posting a story to his

   blog, Expose Corrupt Courts ("ECC") about Cahill and a possible inside Whistleblower

   that was coming forward with corruption charges that rose to the top of the DDC and

   more.


11. That at the initial time of introduction to McKeown, Plaintiff Bernstein was unaware that

   McKeown was named anything other than Frank Brady, a name he claimed later was

   used by several other people he knows. One wonders, who usef' the same alias as another

   and for what, which is still unknown by Plaintiff, as is, how McKeown/Brady

   orchestrated all of these "related" lawsuits with this Court and corralled a number of

   victims of DDC abuse together and how these mystery puzzle pieces come together to

   either derail justice or to see justice served in this Court. Yet, as this Motion will show,

   the time is now for Plaintiff to have discovery of all these mysteries that have led him

   before this Court, as his life and the life of his lovely wife and beautiful three children are

   again in extreme danger (the first time resulted in Car Bombing Murder Attempt of

   Bernstein and his family) and their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, LIFE

   AND LIBERTY AND DUE PROCESS are now being wholly violated by the Defendants




                                             24
   in this RICO, through now further and NEW harassments, abuses of process, theft of

   inheritances, as will all be defined and evidenced further herein.


12. That as evidenced herein Brady McKeown has released BRAND NEW news articles,

   which have allegations that DDC ranking members and others, conspired to "Obstruct

  Justice" in lawsuits through a variety of criminal activity, including in the "legally

   related" Anderson lawsuit and to this RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit. These newly

   discovered crimes wholly violate plaintiffs in these lawsuits rights through FELONY

   STATE AND FEDERAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES COMMITTED

   BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO BLOCK DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF THEIR

   VICTIMS, including but not limited to ALLEGATIONS OF,


     i.   THREATS ON FEDERAL WITNESSES,

    ii. ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING,

   111.   MISUSE OF JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCE RESOURCES AND

          FUNDS TO ILLEGALLY "TARGET" PRIVATE CI'I]IZENS, JUDGES,

          ATTORNEYS AT LAW AND OTHERS,

   iv.    MISUSE OF THE PATRIOT ACT TO TARGET PRIVATE CITIZENS

          WITHOUT WARRANT OR CAUSE,

    v.    24/7/365 SURVELLIANCE OF WHISTLEBLOWERS AND OTHER

          "TARGETS" AND




                                            25
           vi.   THE GRANTING OF LAW LICENSES BY DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS TO

                 NON-LAWYERS IN ORDER TO SUBVERT JUSTICE, THESE CRIMINALS

                 DISGUISED AS "ATTORNEYS AT LAW" THEN INFILTRATING

                 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO INTERFERE WITH THE GOVERNMENT

                 PROCESSES, INVESTIGATIONS, PROSECUTIONS AND MORE.


          All of these criminal acts in efforts to cover up crimes and protect the guilty through

          misuse of public offices.

      13. That these Defendants and others are now alleged to be ILLEGALLY wiretapping not

          only plaintiffs in the legally related lawsuits but Judges and more, as will be evidenced

          herein.


      14. That Just "Who is this Masked Man Anyway 1" and the identity of McKeown/Brady is

          critical information to this Lawsuit now, as it is the glue that binds this Lawsuit with the

          "Legally Related Lawsuits" and ties them all to the following actions,


            L    Ongoing New York Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on Public Office

                 Corruption emanating from the DDC and certain Defendants in this Lawsuit and

                 others, where Plaintiff, Anderson, Brady/McKeown have testified, submitted

                 evidence and await determination from this Committee,

           ii. multiple "Legally Related" lawsuits related by this Court,



1
    1933 Radio Smash "The Lone Ranger" by George W. Trendle and Fran Striker




                                                                                                    1f
                                                      26
               a. (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. 2, WHISTLEBLOWER
                  LAWSUIT,
               b. (07cvl 1196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary
                  Committee, et al. 3 , RICO & ANTITRUST LAWSUIT
               c. (07cvl 1612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al. 4 ,
               d. (08cv00526) Capogrosso, Esq. v New York State Commission on Judicial
                  Conduct, et al.,
               e. (08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al. 5,
               f. (08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al. ,
               g. (08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al. 6 ,
               h. (08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al. 7 ,
               i. (08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al. 8
               J. (08cv6368) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

           m. the DDC Whistleblower "Legally Related" lawsuit to this RICO of Christine C.

                Anderson, Esq. ("Anderson") an Expert in Attorney Misconduct Complaints and

                Eyewitness to Felony Obstruction through document destruction by Defendants in

                these cases and more and further Whitewashing of Complaints by and for State and

                Federal agencies,

           1v. the DDC Whistleblower Nicole Corrado, Esq., also exposed publically by

                Brady/McKeown, where Corrado is the threatened witness in the Anderson lawsuit



2
  http ://wv.w.iviewi t. tv/CompanyDocs/United%20S tates%2 0District%2 0Court%2 0 Southern %2 ODistri ct%2 ONY /and
erson/20071028%20Anderson%200riginal%2 OFiling.pdf
3
  http://v,rW\v.iviewit.tv/CompanvDocs/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RIC
0%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.doc
4
  http://wv.w.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southem%20District%20NY /Esp
osito/2008 l 228%20Luisa %20Esposito%200riginal%20F iling.pdf
5
  http://WW\v.iviewit.tv/CompanvDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southem%20District%20NY/Mc
Keown/20080307%20Kevin%20McKeown.pdf
6
    http : //vvv,rv.,r. iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20S~mthem%20District%20NY/car
vel/Carvel%20Filing.pdf
7
 http://vvvrw.iviewit.tv/CompanvDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southem%20District%20NY/We
isshaus/20080439%2008cv4053%20Gizella%20Weisshaus.pdf
8
  http://wv.w.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southem%20District%20NY/Mc
Cormick/McCom1ick%2008cv4438%20SVM%20Cmplnt.pdf




                                                        27
                 who then filed another Whistleblowing Sexual Misconduct Suit against DDC Senior

                 Ranking Officials, as indicated below, from an article in the New York Law Journal,

               May 16, 2012
               New York Law Journal, By John Caher
               Attorney for Department Disciplinary Committee Sues Court System

               "Attorney Nicole Corrado alleges in a federal lawsuit that she was sexually harassed
               by two now-retired officials at the watchdog agency while a third retaliated against
               her for complaining, and that her lawyer in an unrelated property matter was
               investigated by the committee until he abandoned her case."9

            v. multiple State and Federal ongoing complaints filed by Plaintiffs in the "Legally

                 Related Lawsuits" against Public Officials involved in the alleged crimes in the

                 legally related cases and directed by Brady/McKeown,

           vi. a multitude of news articles regarding corruption at the DDC, the US Attorney, the

                 New York DA and ADA and on behalf of "Favored Law Firms and Lawyers," 10

       15. That all prior stories involving these matters can be found in Exhibit 1 herein, the

           following are selected stories that are pertinent to this Lawsuit.


       16. Thursday, June 28, 2007, ECC released the story,


           "SEX SCANDAL AT THE ATTORNEY COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER &

           FITNESS ... THE LID IS OFF THE COVER-UP OF THE RECENT SEX

           SCANDAL ROCKING THE COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER & FITNESS AT



9
    http://wwvrnewvorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202553693088&Attorney for Department Disciplinar
y Conm1ittee Sues Court Svstem&slretum=20130204075850
10
     As claimed by Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson in testimony before this Court in her lawsuit.




                                                          28
           THE NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST

           DEPARTMENT ON MADISON AVENUE."11

       17. That on Saturday, July 21, 2007, ECC released the story,


           "COURT OVERHAUL BEGINS: ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY CHIEF

           COUNSEL CAHILL FIRST TO GO ... 12 That Cahill is a Defendant in this Lawsuit and

           Anderson. That Defendant Cahill in this Lawsuit and the Anderson lawsuit "resigned"

           due to the unfolding scandal according to ECC.

       18. That on Friday, August 24, 2007 ECC released the story,


           "JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WIDENS 'PATENTGATE' PROBE BURIED BY

           ETHICS CHIEF THOMAS J. CAHILL. IN A LETTER DATED JULY 16, 2007,

           THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL

           RESPONSIBILITY, ANNOUNCED FROM ITS WASHINGTON, D.C.

           HEADQUARTERS THAT IT WAS EXPANDING ITS INVESTIGATION INTO A

           BIZARRELY STALLED FBI INVESTIGATION THAT INVOLVES AN

           ALMOST SURREAL STORY OF THE THEFT OF NEARLY 30 U.S. PATENTS,

           AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, WORTH BILLIONS OF




11
     http://www.exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2 007 /06/sex-scandal-at-attomev-committee-on.html
12
     http://exposecormptcourts.blogspot.com/2007 /07 /court-overhaul-begins-disciplinarv .html




                                                           29
                             13
            DOLLARS.              That Patentgate is the moniker ascribed to Plaintiffs IP theft claims as
                                                                           14
            more fully described in the Amended Complaint                       .


       19. That on Tuesday, August 28, 2007, ECC released the story,


            "PATENTGATE ETHICS SCAM HITS HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR. ..AS A

            YOUNG GIRL, MRS. GIZELLA WEISSHAUS SURVIVED THE HOLOCAUST,

            BUT RECENTLY AND NOW 77-YEARS-OLD, SHE FINDS HERSELF ON THE

            GROWING LIST OF VICTIMS ENSNARLED IN THE MANHATTAN

            ATTORNEY ETHICS SCANDAL SHAKING THE NEW YORK STATE COURT

            SYSTEM .... "15

       20. That on Tuesday, April 1, 2008, ECC released the story,


            "NY ETHICS SCANDAL TIED TO INTERNATIONAL ESPIONAGE

            SCHEME. .. TAMMANY HALL II ETHICS SCANDAL REACHING NEW

            HEIGHTS.

            Excerpts from the article,

            Reports surfaced in New York and around Washington, D. C. last week detailing a

            massive communications satellite espionage scheme involving major multi-national

            corporations and the interception of top-secret satellite signals. The evidence in the

13
     http: //expo secorruptcourts.bl ogspot. com/2007/08/justice-dept -widens-patentgate-pro be.html

14


http:/hvww. ivie\vit. tv /Company Docs/United%20Sta tes%2 ODi strict%2 0Court%2 OSouthem%2 0District%2ONY12 00
80509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COivIPLAINT%20AND%20RIC0%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

15
     http ://expo secorruptcourts. b logspot. corn/200 7/08/paten tgate-ethics-scam-hits-ho locaust .html




                                                                                                                                rt
                                                                30                                                    '
                                                                                                                                ~~-·.
                                                                                                                                 . _,.:··-\
                                                                                                                  .              .
                                                                                                                 .'.                     i
                                                                                                                          ...
         corporate eavesdropping cover-up "is frightening," according to an informed source who

         has reviewed the volumes of documentation. The espionage scheme, he says, is directly

         tied to the growing state bar ethics scandal at the Appellate Division First Department,

        Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) in Manhattan. Rumors had been

         Circulating Linking the NY Bar Scandal to International Corporate Espionage Ops Using

         Satellites. " 16

     21. That on Friday, November 21, 2008, ECC released the story,


         "BREAKING NEWS ........ CLICK HERE FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

         INVESTIGATION ... FBI PROBES THREATS ON FEDERAL WITNESSES IN NY

         ETHICS SCANDAL" 17 That the Obstruction of Justice is against Anderson and

         Corrado by Senior New York Supreme Court Officials, whistleblowers to their corruption

         scheme.

     22. That on Thursday, March 5, 2009, ECC released the story,


         "U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER ASKED TO APPOINT NEW

         YORK ETHICS PROSECUTOR ... PART I - MANHATTAN ETHICS

         CHAIRMAN, ROY L. REARDON, ACCUSED OF WHITE-WASHING CRIMES

         BY ATTORNEYS ... PART II- STATEWIDE JUDICIAL ETHICS CHAIRMAN,

         ROBERT TEMBECKJIAN, ACCUSED OF WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION." 18


16
   http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/04/nv -ethics-scandal-tied-to-intemational.htrnl
17
   http: //exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/11/breaking-news.htrnl
18
   http ://exposecorruptcourts. b logspot. com/2009103 /us-attorney-general-eric-holder-asked.html




                                                          31
       23 . That on Monday, September 21, 2009, ECC released the story,


           "NY STATE COURT INSIDER CALLS FOR FEDERAL PROSECUTOR ...

           LETTER FROM: Christine C. Anderson

                    Attorney at Law

                    September 13, 2009 (via Confirmed Overnight Delivery)

                    TO: The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
                    Attorney General of the United States
                    Office of the Attorney General
                    United States Department of Justice

                    The Hon. Preet Bharara
                    United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York
                    United States Department of Justice

                    Hon. William M. Welch II
                    Chief, Public Integrity Unit
                    United States Department of Justice

                    The Hon. John L. Sampson, Chairman
                    New York State Senate Judiciary Committee

                    RE: REQUEST FOR FEDERAL INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS
                    OF CORRUPTION AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND
                    APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL MONITOR." 19

       24. That on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, ECC released the story,


           "NEW TRIAL SOUGHT IN NY STATE CORRUPTION CASE, AG BLASTED

           FOR MASSIVE CONFLICTS ... NEW FEDERAL TRIAL REQUESTED IN NY

           STATE CORRUPTION CASE. That similarly the AG has been accused in this


19
     http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspotcom/2009/09/nv-state-comt-insider-calls-for.html




                                                                                           {I
                                                          32
           Lawsuit of the same ILLEGAL and OBSTRUCTIONARY representations as in

            Anderson and represents State of New York Defendants in this Lawsuit both personally

            and professionally while simultaneously blocking complaints against their State

           Defendant clients at the AG's office. Further, the illegal representations of the State

           Defendants personally misappropriate public funds to pay for their personal defense, in

           violation of Public Office rules and Law.

       25. That on Wednesday, June 27, 2012, ECC released the story,


           "NY LEGAL ETHICS SCANDAL WHISTLEBLOWER BACK IN FEDERAL

            COURT ... WITNESS TAMPERING BRINGS NY ATTORNEY CHRISTINE

           ANDERSON BACK TO FEDERAL COURT ... WIDESPREAD 'ETHICS'

           CORRUPTION NOW INCLUDES THREAT ON WITNESS IN A FEDERAL

           PROCEEDING ... CLICK HERE TO SEE THE STORY AND THE JUNE 25, 2012

            FILED PAPERS."20 That while this Court struck down Anderson's motion mentioned

           in the article above on ridiculous technicalities and presumptions about opinions of what

           this Court thought about the Threat on a Federal Witness being admissible in Anderson's

           lawsuit, this Court however factually became at the time fully aware of the FELONY

           allegations against another Attorney at Law, a Public Official who made these threats on

           a Federal Witness as reported by EYEWITNESS CREDIBLE WITNESSES

           ANDERSON AND CORRADO and therefor this Court now has legal obligations to

           report the misconduct alleged to the proper authorities for CRIMINAL
20
     http://ethicsrouser. blogspot. corn/2012/06/nv-legal-ethics-scandal-whistleblower. htrni




                                                             33
         INVESTIGATION or face charges of Misprision of a Felony and for violations of

         Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law.

    26. That Plaintiff also claims this Court has been aware of further evidence of CRIMINAL

         MISCONDUCT EXPOSED IN THIS COURT in the Anderson case. Plaintiff presumes,

         after notifying this Court of the crimes that it would be committing with a failure to

         report the crimes exposed by Anderson, that this Court failed to contact State and Federal

         authorities of these MULTIPLE FELONY CRIMES that were alleged in this Court by

         Anderson. Crimes alleged against US Attorneys, DA's, ADA's, the New York AG and

         Favored Law Firms and Lawyers, who are shown to be working together to scrub

         complaints against each other, in a "you scratch my back" criminal scheme to evade

         prosecution and Obstruct Justice of those opposing them. 21


    27. That following URL http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=205 and Exhibit 2, IS THE

         NOTIFICATION ALREADY SERVED TO THIS COURT OF THE FELONY CRIMES

         EXPOSED IN THIS COURT BY ANDERSON and of NEW FELONY CRIMES

         COMMITTED IN THIS COURT TO COVER THEM UP.


    28. That this Court now attempts to bury the CRIMINAL ACTS exposed in this Court by

         SEVERAL CREDIBLE EYEWITNESS EXPERTS IN ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

         COMPLAINTS and LAW, by failing to contact the appropriate CRIMINAL

21
   http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/? p=205
and
http://www.free -press-release. corn/news-iviewit -inventor-eh ot-bernstein -files-criminal-charges-against-nv-a g-
andrew-cuomo-chief-of-staff-steven-cohen-asst-a g-monica-connell-w-gov-david-12 91165 927 .html




                                                                                                                            .,.. .·.
                                                                                                                                   .,.
                                                                                                                           Zt
                                                           34                                                          .        . .. ·.,.....
                                                                                                                      .·                  .




                                                                                                                            7
           AUTHORITIES and dismiss ALL the cases with absolutely no due process and failing to

           follow procedure and law. This failure to notify authorities, despite repeated calls by

           Anderson and the related lawsuits for a Federal Monitor, can no longer be tolerated as our

           lives have come into grave danger as further described herein. Therefore, if Plaintiff is

           not notified by this Court that these LEGALLY REQUIRED OBLIGATIONS have been

           fulfilled by this Court then Plaintiff must file charges against this Court and Hon. Judge

           Shira Scheindlin for MISPRISION OF A FELONY, AIDING AND ABETTING A

           CRIMINAL RICO ORG, OBSTRUCTION OF ruSTICE and more. Plaintiff will file the

           charges, if necessary, after the ruling on this Motion and if these claims are not addressed

           by the Court, Plaintiff will move for a DISQUALIFICATION of Scheindlin in this

           lawsuit and report the Felony Acts, including those of this Court, to all appropriate

           ST ATE and FEDERAL authorities. That by hiding these facts and attempting to bury

           these cases without due process, this Court is a further tool of the illegal Obstruction and

           all Orders, Rulings, etc. a part of a FRAUD ON THE COURT through ABUSE OF

           PROCESS.


       29. That on Friday, January 25, 2013, ECC released the RIVITING STORY


           "FORMER INSIDER ADMITS TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPS FOR NYS 'ETHICS

           BOSSES"'22




22
     http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2013/01 /fom1er-insider-admits-to-illegal.html




                                                           35
That this story is written and posted by McKeown. The article details intentional

"Obstruction of Justice" against Related Case to this Lawsuit (07cv09599) Anderson v

The State of New York, et al. filed by Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson, Esq. former

Attorney at Law for the New York Supreme Court Departmental Disciplinary Committee

and an expert in Attorney at Law Disciplinary complaints. The article details an invasion

of privacy against Anderson to "OBSTRUCT ruSTICE" so outrageous as to completely

have prejudiced not only the Anderson related lawsuit but this Lawsuit and evezy lawsuit

"Legally Related" to Anderson.

Selected Quotes from this story,

       "FORMER INSIDER ADMITS TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPS FOR NYS
       'ETHICS BOSSES"'

       Evidence was obtained on Thursday, January 24, 2013, confirming the position of

       a former NYS attorney ethics committee insider that various illegal actions were

       employed by New York State employees to target and/or protect select attorneys.

       For purposes of this article, a first in a series, the former insider will be referred to

       as "The Cleaner's Man" or "The Man."

       The Cleaner

       During the wrongful termination case of former Manhattan ethics attorney
       Christine Anderson, it was revealed that New York State employees had a nick-
       name for supervising ethics attorney Naomi Goldstein. Naomi Goldstein was,
       "The Cleaner."

       "Ethics" Retaliation Machine Was Real.




                                          36
                    The focus of this initial article concerns the 1st and 2nd judicial department,
                    though the illegal methods are believed to have been utilized statewide in all 4
                    judicial departments.

                    The Cleaner's Man says that he would receive a telephone call from Naomi
                    Goldstein, who would say, "we have another target, I want to meet you ... " The
                    Man also says that Thomas Cahill, a former DDC Chief Counsel, and Sherry
                    Cohen, a former Deputy-Chief Counsel, were knowledgeable of all of Naomi
                    Goldstein's activity with him and his team.

                    The meetings, he says, were usually at a park or restaurant near the Manhattan
                    Attorney ethics offices (the "DDC") in lower Manhattan, however he did over
                    time meet Goldstein at his office, the DDC or in movie theater- a venue picked by
                    Naomi. Goldstein would provide her Man with the name, and other basic
                    information, so that the Man's team could begin their "investigation."

                    The Man specifically recalls Naomi Goldstein advising him to "get as much
                    damaging information as possible on Christine [Anderson]."

                    The Man says that they then tapped Ms. Anderson's phones, collected ALL "ISP"
                    computer data, including all emails, and set up teams to surveil Anderson 24/7.
                    The Man says he viewed the improperly recorded conversations and ISP data, and
                    then personally handed those items over to Naomi Goldstein.

                    Anderson should not, however, feel like she was a lone target. According to The
                           11                                                  11
                    Man,       over 125 cases were interfered with .... And there were dozens of
                                ••••


                    "targeted" lawyers, says The Man,adding, that the actions of his teams were
                    clearly "intentionally obstructing justice."

                    If Ms. Goldstein had identified the Ethics Committee's newest target as an
                    attorney, it was quickly qualified with whether the involved lawyer was to be
                    "screwed or UNscrewed." Unscrewed was explained as when an attorney needed
                    to be "protected" or "saved" even if they did, in fact, have a major ethics problem.

                    The Man has a nice way of explaining his actions, the "authority" to so act and, he
                    says, over 1.5 million documents as proof. ....... The U.S. Attorney is aware of
                    The Man and his claims .... " 23

       30. That on Sunday, February 10, 2013, ECC released the story,

23
     http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot .com/2013/01 /fonner-insider-admits-to-illegal.html




                                                            37


                                                                                                           {f
            "UPDATE ON ATTORNEY "ETHICS" COMMITTEES' ILLEGAL WIRETAPS

            FORMER INSIDER ADMITS TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPS FOR "ETHICS"

            BOSSES."24

                     From that story,

                     Evidence was obtained on Thursday, January 24, 2013 , confirming the position of
                     a former New York State attorney ethics committee insider that various illegal
                     actions were employed by New York State supervising employees to target and/or
                     protect select attorneys.

                     The Cleaner

                     Many of the most powerful attorneys in the United States are licensed to practice
                     law in New York State, and if the business address for that lawyer is located in
                     The Bronx or Manhattan, legal ethics is overseen by the Departmental
                     Disciplinary Committee (the "DDC"), a group that falls under Manhattan's
                     Appellate Division of The NY Supreme Court, First Department.

                     A few years ago, and during a wrongful termination case involving a former DDC
                     ethics attorney, Christine Anderson, it was revealed that DDC employees had a
                     nick-name for a supervising ethics attorney, Naomi Goldstein. "Ethics"
                     Supervising Attorney Naomi Goldstein was known as "the Cleaner."

                     "Ethics" Retaliation Machine Was Real

                     There are usually cries of "retaliation" whenever charges of violating regulations
                     of attorney ethics rules are lodged against a lawyer. However, an investigation of
                     activity at the DDC for a ten year period reveals starling evidence of routine and
                     improper retaliation, evidence tampering and widespread coverups.

                     Importantly, an insider, who says he was involved in the illegal activity, including
                     widespread wiretapping, has provided the troubling details during recent
                     interviews. He says he supervised the teams that acted illegally. The insider says
                     that he was Naomi Goldstein's 'man' - The Cleaner's 'man' - and that he would
                     simply receive a telephone call from Naomi Goldstein, and who would say, "we
                     have another target, I want to meet you ... " He also says that Thomas Cahill, a
                     former DDC Chief Counsel, and Sherry Cohen, a former Deputy-Chief Counsel-
24
     http ://exposecorruptcourts. bloirspot. com/2013 /02/update-on -attorney -ethics-comm.ittees. html




                                                               38
and now in private practice helping lawyers in "ethics" investigations, were part
of, and knowledgeable of, the illegal activity .

The meetings, the insider says, were usually at a park or restaurant near the
DDC's lower Manhattan ethics' offices, however he did over time meet Goldstein
at his office, inside the DDC or in movie theater- a venue picked by Naomi.
Goldstein only needed to provide him with the name and other basic information,
so that his team could begin their "investigation."

He specifically recalls Naomi Goldstein advising him to "get as much damaging
information as possible on Christine [Anderson,]" the former DDC staff attorney
who had complained that certain internal files had been gutted of collected
evidence.

Naomi's "man" says that they then tapped Ms. Anderson's phones, collected ALL
"ISP" computer data, including all emails, and set up teams to surveil Anderson
2417.

He says he reviewed the illegally recorded conversations and ISP data, and then
personally handed those items over to Naomi Goldstein.

Attorney Christine Anderson should not, however, feel like she was a lone target.
Initially, Goldstein's "man," indicated that " .... over 125 [attorney] cases were
interfered with .... " But a subsequent and closer review of approximately 1. 5
million documents has revealed that there may have been many hundreds of
attorneys, over the ten-year-period, involved in the DDC's dirty tricks, focused
retaliation and planned coverups.

Previously identified "targeted" lawyers were only numbered in the "dozens," but
that was before the years-old documents were reviewed. In initial interviews, the
insider says that if Ms. Goldstein had identified the DDC ethics committee's
newest target as an attorney, it was quickly qualified with whether the involved
lawyer was to be "screwed or UNscrewed." Unscrewed was explained as when
an attorney needed to be "protected" or "saved" even if they did, in fact, have a
major ethics problem. But targets, it is now revealed, were not always identified
as having a law license.

The DDC insider also says that litigants (most of whom were not attorneys) were
also DDC targets. The on-going document review continues to refresh the
memory of the insider, after initially only remembering names from high-profile
cases involving "big-name" attorneys. But one fact remains constant, says the




                                 39
                    insider- the actions of his teams were clearly and "intentionally obstructing
                    justice. "25

       31. That on Friday February 15, 2013, ECC released the SHOCKING following two stories,


                                     WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013

       "JUDGES WERE ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPED, SAYS
                       INSIDER"
              http ://exposecom1ptcourts.bl ogspot. com/2013 /02/judges-were-illegally -wiretapped-say s. html




Not only were attorneys targeted for 24/7 wiretapping of their personal and business phones, but
judges in New York also became victims of the illegal whims of political insiders, according to a
former insider who says he supervised parts of the operation for years.

It was previously reported that evidence was obtained on January 24, 2013 confirming illegal
actions against New York attorneys, including the continuous and illegal wiretapping of their
phones and the complete capture and copying of all internet ISP activity, including email.
CLICK HERE TO SEE BACKGROUND STORY "Former Insider Admits to Illegal Wiretaps
for "Ethics Bosses"

The Manhattan-based attorney ethics committee, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the
"DDC"), a state-run entity that oversees the "ethics" of those who practice law in The Bronx and
Manhattan, has been identified of utilizing the illegal activity- at will, and by whim- to either
target or protect certain attorneys.

One Manhattan supervising ethics attorney, Naomi Goldstein, was identified as a regular
requestor of the illegal tape recordings, and former chief counsel [DEFENDANT] Thomas
Cahill has been described in interviews as being "very involved" to those who were
conducting the illegal activity. Cahill subsequently retired, however New York State-paid
attorney Naomi Goldstein still supervises "ethics" investigations from her Wall Street DDC 2nd
floor office at 61 Broadway. THERE'S MORE TO THIS STORY, see the first 3 judges
identified ...... CLICK HERE TO SEE THE LATEST ETHICSGATE UPDATE




25
     http ://exposecorruptcourts. blogspo t. com/20 13/02/upda te-on-attomev-ethics-commi ttees .html




                                                             40
                                WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013

   "JUDGES WERE ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPED, SAYS
                   INSIDER"
              http://ethics gate. bl ogspot. corn/2013 /02 /judges-were-illegallv-wiretapped-says.html

Not only were attorneys targeted for 24/7 wiretapping of their personal and business phones, but
judges in New York also became victims of the illegal whims of political insiders, according to a
former insider who says he supervised parts of the operation for years.

It was previously reported that evidence was obtained on January 24, 2013 confirming illegal
actions against New York attorneys, including the continuous and iIIegaI wiretapping of their
phones and the complete capture and copying of all internet ISP activity, including email.
CLICK HERE TO SEE BACKGROUND STORY "Former Insider Admits to Illegal Wiretaps
for "Ethics Bosses"

The Manhattan-based attorney ethics committee, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the
"DDC"), a state-run entity that oversees the "ethics" of those who practice law in The Bronx and
Manhattan, has been identified of utilizing the illegal activity- at will, and by whim- to either
target or protect certain attorneys.

One Manhattan supervising ethics attorney, Naomi Goldstein, was identified as a regular
requestor of the illegal tape recordings, and former chief counsel Thomas Cahill has been
described in interviews as being "very involved" to those who were conducting the illegal
activity. Cahill subsequently retired, however New York State-paid attorney Naomi Goldstein
still supervises "ethics" investigations from her Wall Street DDC 2nd floor office at 61
Broadway.

Ethicsgate

According to the source, one New York "ethics" legend, Alan Friedberg, was "very well known"
to those conducting the illegal wiretapping activity. Friedberg, who has become the poster child
for unethical tactics while conducting "ethics" inquiries, appears to have been present in the
various state offices where illegal wiretaps were utilized. Friedberg worked for the New York
State Commission on Judicial Conduct (the "CJC") before running the Manhattan attorney
"ethics" committee as chief counsel for a few years. Friedberg then resurfaced at the CJC, where
he remains today. The CJC investigates ethics complaints of all judges in New York State.

Judges Deserve Justice Too, Unless Political Hacks Decide Otherwise




                                                        41
While court administrators have effectively disgraced most judges with substandard
compensation, it appears that at least the selective enforcement of "ethics" rules, dirty tricks and
retaliation were equally employed on lawyers and judges alike.

According to the insider, targeted judges had their cellphones, homes and court phones
wiretapped- all without required court orders. In addition, according to the source, certain
courtrooms, chambers and robing rooms were illegally bugged.

A quick review of notes from over one million pages of evidence, according to the insider,
reveals that the "black bag jobs" included: NYS Supreme Court Judge, the Hon. Alice
Schlesinger (Manhattan), Criminal Court Judge, the Hon. Shari R. Michels (Brooklyn) and NYS
Supreme Court Judge, the Bernadette Bayne (Brooklyn).

More coming soon ........ sign up for email alerts, at the top of this page .. .. .. ..



CLICK HERE to see, "Top Judicial 'Ethics' Lawyer Settles Lack-of-Sex Lawsuit"



       32. That on Friday February 15, 2013, ECC released the story,


           "NY GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO ASKED TO SHUT DOWN JUDICIAL

           "ETHICS" OFFICES." 26

                   Selected Quotes from that story,

                   New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has been formally requested to
                   immediately shut down the offices of The Commission on Judicial Conduct (the
                   "CJC"), the state agency charged with overseeing the ethics of all judges in the
                   Empire State. The request comes from a public integrity group after confirmation
                   that the CJC has been involved in illegally wiretapping and other illegal "black
                   bag operations" for years.

                   Governor Cuomo is asked to send New York State Troopers to close and secure
                   the state's three judicial ethics offices: the main office on the 12th floor at 61
                   Broadway in Manhattan, the capital office in Albany at the Coming Tower in the

26
     http://ethicsgate.blogspot.com/2013/02/nv-govemor-andrew-cuomo-asked-to -shut.html




                                                                                                        '1f
                                                        42
           Empire State Plaza, and the northwest regional office at 400 Andrews Street in
           Rochester.

           The Governor is asked to telephone the Assistant United States Attorney who is
           overseeing the millions of items of evidence, most of which that has been secreted
           from the public- and the governor- by a federal court order.

           Governor Cuomo was provided with the direct telephone number of the involved
           federal prosecutor, and simply requested to confirm that evidence exists that
           certain state employees in New York's so-calledjudicial "ethics" committee
           illegally wiretapped state judges.

           The request to the governor will be posted at www.ethicsgate.com later today.
           (Media inquiries can be made to 202-374-3680.)

33. That on Friday, February 15, 2013, ECC released the story,


   "SEE THE LETTER TO NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO RE:

   WIRETAPPING JUDGES ... CLICKHERE TO SEE THE LETTER, AT

   HTTP://ETHICSGATE.BLOGSPOT.COM/2013/02/LETTER-TO-NEW-YORK-

   GOVERNOR-ANDREW.HTML

           Selected quotes from that article and the letter to Cuomo,

          Friday, February 15, 2013

           Letter to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Re : Wiretapping Judges

           The letter was delivered to the Governor's Manhattan and Albany offices:

           Reform2013.com
                   [**REDACTED**]
           202-374-3680 tel
                   202-827-9828 fax
                   [**REDACTED**]

          February 15, 2013
          The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo,




                                            43
          Governor of New York State
          NYS Captiol Building
          Albany, New York 12224     [**REDACTED**]
          [**REDACTED**]
          [**REDACTED**]

          RE: ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING OF JUDGES BY THE COMMISSION ON
          JUDICIAL CONDUCT

          Dear Governor Cuomo

          I respectfully request that you telephone Assistant U.S. Attorney
          [**REDACTED**] and ask whether there is any credible evidence in the millions
          of documents, currently under court seal in case# [**REDACTED**] regarding
          the illegal wiretapping of New York State judges and attorneys
          [**REDACTED**]

          I believe you will quickly confirm that certain NYS emp oyees at the judicial and
          attorney "ethics" committees routinely directed such "bl~ck bag operations" by
          grossly and illegally abusing their access to [**REDAC ED**J

          New York judges and lawyers, and obviously the public,        deserve immediate
          action to address the widespread corruption in and about       he state's so-called
          "ethics" oversight entities. According, it is requested tha   you temporarily shut
          down and secure New York's "ethics" offices and appoi         t, by executive order, an
          Ethics Commission to investigate, etc.

          Please take immediate action regarding this vital issue, d so as to continue your
          efforts to help all New Yorkers restore their faith in their government.
          [**REDACTED**]


          cc:     Assistant U.S. Attorney [**REDACTED**]
                  The Hon. [**REDACTED**]
                  [**REDACTED**]


34. That on Tuesday, February 19, 2013, ECC released the story,




                                            44
            "ETHICSGATE UPDATE FAXED TO EVERY U.S. SENATOR

            WWW.ETHICSGATE.COM               "THE ULTIMATE VIOLATION OF TRUST IS THE

            CORRUPTION OF ETHICS OVERSIGHT" EXCLUSIVE UPDATE:

            Tuesday, February 19, 2013 --- New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo asked to shut

            down judicial "Ethics" offices after evidence reveals illegal wiretapping of judges -

            Andrew Cuomo was formally requested on Friday, February 15, 2013 to shut down the

           NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, the state agency charged with overseeing the

            ethics of all non-federal judges in the Empire State. Governor Cuomo will confirm with

            federal prosecutors that a case, where millions of documents are held under seal, contains

            evidence of widespread "black bag operations" that advanced, over more than a decade,

           knowingly false allegations against targets while protecting favored insiders, including

           Wall Street attorneys ... . See the full story at: www ethicsgate.com" 27

       35. That on Thursday, February 28, 2013, ECC released the story,


            "NEW YORK SENATORS ASKED TO APPOINT ETHICS CORRUPTION

            LIAISON ... EVERY NEW YORK STATE SENATOR HAS BEEN REQUESTED

           TO APPOINT AN "ETHICS CORRUPTION LIAISON" SO THAT TIMELY

            INFORMATION IN THE EVER-GROWING SCANDAL INSIDE NEW YORK'S

           SO-CALLED "ETHICS" ENTITIES MAY BE PROVIDED TO EACH STATE

            SENATOR.

                     Reform2013. com
27
     http: //exposecorrnptcourts. b logspot. com/2013 /02/ethicsgate-update-faxed-to-every -us .html




                                                                                                         ~!
                                                              45



                                                                                                         fr ··
Ethicsgate.com
February 28, 2013
Via Facsimile [as noted below]

RE: Illegal Wiretapping of NYS Judges and Attorneys by "Ethics" Entities

Dear Senator,

On February 15, 2013, we formally requested that Governor Cuomo contact the
Assistant U.S. Attorney handling a sensitive federal case wherein credible
evidence, in the millions of documents currently under court seal, support the
allegation of the widespread illegal wiretapping of New York State judges and
attorneys over at least the last ten years. In addition, other individuals- unrelated
to that sealed federal matter- allege the exact same illegal activity.

The illegal wiretapping is alleged to have been directed by named senior
personnel (and NYS employees) at the Commission on Judicial Conduct (the
"CJC") and by at least two of the state's 4 judicial departments' attorney ethics
committees.

We are, of course, confident that Governor Cuomo is taking decisive action
regarding these troubling allegations, and we are now requesting that you, as a
New York State Senator, begin a comprehensive review of the troubling issues.

As we are all aware, certain corrupt forces in New York have caused tremendous
damage to the very soul of this great state. Now, the improper actions have
accomplished the "ultimate corruption" - they have compromised and corrupted
New York's so-called "ethics oversight" entities.

New York judges and lawyers, and obviously the public, deserve immediate
action to address the widespread corruption in and about the state's so-called
"ethics" oversight entities. (Additional information is available at
www.Reform2013.com)

Accordingly, it is requested that you direct someone in your office to act as the
liaison regarding this Ethics Corruption, and that he or she be in contact with us
so that we may best communicate information to your office. Please have your
designee contact us at their earliest convenience. Thank you.


         Very truly yours,
         Reforrn2013




                                  46
36. That on Wednesday April 03, 2013, ECC released the story,


   FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST NYS EMPLOYEES FOR ILLEGAL

   WIRETAPPING ...THE WIDESPREAD ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING INCLUDED

   TARGETED NEW YORK STATE JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS ..... ,

          Reform2013 .com
          P.O. Box 3493
          New York, New York 10163
          202-374-3680 tel
          202-827-9828 fax

          via facsimile# 202-514-6588

          April 3, 2013

          Robert Moossy, Jr., Section Chief
          Criminal Section, Civil Rights Division
          US Department of Justice
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20530

          RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST NEW YORK STATE
          EMPLOYEES INVOLVING
          CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING WIDESPREAD
          ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING

          Dear Mr. Moossy,

          In researching and reporting on various acts of corruption in and about the New
          York State Court System, specific reviewed evidence supports allegations that
          over a ten-year-plus period of time, certain NYS employees participated in the
          widespread practice of illegal wiretapping, inter alia. As these individuals were in
          supervisory positions at "ethics oversight" committees, the illegal wiretapping
          largely concerned attorneys and judges, but their actions also targeted other
          individuals who had some type of dealings with those judicial and attorney
          "ethics" committees.




                                           47
The NY state-employed individuals herein complained of include New York State
admitted attorneys Thomas Joseph Cahill, Alan Wayne Friedberg,
Sherry Kruger Cohen, David Spokony and Naomi Freyda
Goldstein.

At some point in time shortly after 9/11, and by methods not addressed here,
these individuals improperly utilized access to, and devices of, the
lawful operations of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (the
"JTTF"). These individuals completely violated the provisions of
FISA, ECPA and the Patriot Act for their own personal and
political agendas. Specifically, these NY state employees essentially
commenced "black bag operations,'' including illegal wiretapping, against
whomever they chose- and without legitimate or lawful purpose.
To be clear, any lawful act involving the important work of the JTTF is to be
applauded. The herein complaint simply addresses the unlawful access- and use-
of JTTF related operations for the personal and political whims of those who
improperly acted under the color of law. Indeed, illegally utilizing JTTF
resources is not only illegal, it is a complete insult to those involved in such
important work.

In fact, hard-working and good-intentioned prosecutors and investigators (federal
and state) are also victims here, as they were guided and primed with knowingly
false information.

Operations involving lawful activity- and especially as part of the important work
of the JTTF and related agencies- are not at issue here. This complaint concerns
the illegal use and abuse of such lawful operations for personal and political gain,
and all such activity while acting under the color of law. This un-checked access
to highly-skilled operatives found undeserving protection for some connected
wrong-doers, and the complete destruction of others- on a whim, including the
pre-prosecution priming of falsehoods ("set-ups"). The aftermath of such abuse
for such an extended period of time is staggering.

It is believed that most of the 1.5 million-plus items in evidence now under seal in
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York, case #09cr405
(EDNY) supports the fact, over a ten-year-plus period of time, of the illegal
wiretapping of New York State judges, attorneys, and related targets, as directed
by state employees.




                                 48
To be sure, the defendant in #09cr405, Frederick Celani, is a felon who is now
regarded by many as a conman. Notwithstanding the individual (Celani), the
evidence is clear that Celani once supervised lawful "black bag operations," and,
further, that certain NYS employees illegally utilized access to such operations for
their own illegal purposes. (Simple reference is made to another felon, the
respected former Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, Sol
Wachtler, who many believe was victimized by political pre-priming
prosecution.)

In early February, 2013, I personally reviewed, by appropriate FOIL request to a
NYS Court Administrative Agency, over 1000 documents related to the herein
complaint. Those documents, and other evidence, fully support Celani' s claim of
his once-lawful supervisory role in such JTTF operations, and his extended
involvement with those herein named. (The names of specific targeted judges and
attorneys are available.)

One sworn affidavit, by an attorney, confirms the various illegal activity of
Manhattan's attorney "ethics" committee, the Departmental Disciplinary
Commjttee (the "DDC"), wfoch jncludes allowing cover law firm operatjons to
engage in the practice of law without a law license. Specifically, evidence
(attorney affidavits, etc.) supports the claim that Naomi Goldstein, and other DDC
employees supervised the protection of the unlicensed practice of law. The
evidence also shows that Ms. Goldstein knowingly permitted the unlicensed
practice oflaw, over a five-year-plus period of time, for the purpose of gaining
access to, and information from, hundreds of litigants.

Evidence also supports the widespread illegal use of "black bag operations" by
the NYS employees for a wide-range of objectives: to target or protect a certain
judge or attorney, to set-up anyone who had been deemed to be a target, or to
simply achieve a certain goal. The illegal activity is believed to not only have
involved attorneys and judges throughout all of the New York State, including all
4 court-designated ethics "departments," but also in matters beyond the borders of
New York.

Other evidence points to varying and widespread illegal activity, and knowledge
of such activity, by these and other NYS employees- all of startling proportions.

For example:

The "set-up" of numerous individuals for an alleged plot to bomb a Riverdale, NY
Synagogue. These individuals are currently incarcerated. The trial judge, U.S.




                                 49
District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who publicly expressed concerns over
the case, saying, "I have never heard anything like the facts of this case. I don't
think any other judge has ever heard anything like the facts of this case." (2nd
Circuit l lcr2763)

The concerted effort to fix numerous cases where confirmed associates of
organized crime had made physical threats upon litigants and/or witnesses, and/or
had financial interests in the outcome of certain court cases.
The judicial and attorney protection/operations, to gain control, of the $250
million-plus Thomas Carvel estate matters, and the pre-prosecution priming of the
$150 million-plus Brooke Astor estate.

The thwarting of new evidence involving a mid l 990' s " set-up" of an individual,
who spent over 4 years in prison because he would not remain silent about
evidence he had involving financial irregularities and child molestation by a CEO
of a prominent Westchester, NY non-profit organization. (Hon. John F. Keenan)
The wire-tapping and ISP capture, etc., ofDDC attorney, Christine C. Anderson,
who had filed a lawsuit after being assaulted by a supervisor, Sherry Cohen, and
after complaining that certain evidence in ethics case files had been improperly
destroyed. (See SDNY case #07cv9599 - Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J.)

The eToys litigation and bankruptcy, and associates of Marc Dreir, involving over
$500 million and the protection by the DDC of certain attorneys, one who was
found to have lied to a federal judge over 15 times.
The "set-up" and "chilling" of effective legal counsel of a disabled woman by a
powerful CEO and his law firms, resulting in her having no contact with her
children for over 6 years.

The wrongful detention for 4 years, prompted by influential NY law firms, of an
early whistleblower of the massive Wall Street financial irregularities involving
Bear Stems and where protected attorney-client conversations were recorded and
distributed.

The blocking of attorney accountability in the $1.25 billion Swiss Bank Holocaust
Survivor settlement where one involved NY admitted attorney was ultimately
disbarred- in New Jersey. Only then, and after 10 years, did the DDC follow with
disbarment. (Gizella Weisshaus v. Fagan)

Additional information will be posted on www.Reforrn2013.com
The allegations of widespread wiretapping by New York's so-called "ethics"
committees were relayed to New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo on February




                                  50


                                                                                      If
          15, 2013, and to the DDC Chairman Mr. Roy R L. Reardon, Esq., who
          confirmed, on March 27, 2013, his knowledge of the allegations. (Previously, on
          March 25, 2013, I had written to DDC Deputy Chief Counsel Naomi Goldstein,
          copying Mr. Reardon, of my hope that she would simply tell the truth about the
          improper activity, inter alia.)

          New York judges and lawyers, and obviously the public, deserve immediate
          action to address the widespread corruption in and about New York' s so-called
          "ethics" oversight entities.

          Please take immediate action regarding this troubling issue, and so as to continue
          the DOJ' s efforts to help all New Yorkers restore their faith in their government.

           cc:

          U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch via facsimile 718-254-6479 and 631-715-7922
          U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Section via facsimile 202-307-1379, 202-514-0212
          The Hon. Arthur D. Spart, via facsimile 631-712-5626
          The Hon. Colleen McMahon via facsimile 212-805-6326
          Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin via facsimile 212-805-7920
          Assistant U.S. Attorney Demetri Jones via facsimile 631-715-7922
          Assistant U.S. Attorney Perry Carbone via facsimile 914-993-1980
          Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan McGuire via 212-637-2615 and 212-637-
          0016
          FBI SSA Robert Hennigan via facsimile 212-384-4073 and 212-384-4074
          Pending SEC Chafr Mary Jo White via facsimile 212-909-6836
          Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 2: 11 PM

37. That in ECC stories from June 27, 2012 through February 28, 2013 listed herein a Pattern

   and Practice of Public Office     C~rruption   is apparent, with now admitted Felony

   Obstruction of Justice by the person contracted to violate "targets" rights, committed by

   New York Public Officials that are Defendants in this lawsuit and matching identically

   the types of CRIMINAL CONSPIRATORIAL OBSTRUCTIONS revealed in the

   Anderson lawsuit. After speaking with the source of the story McKeown, on information

   and belief, Plaintiff and the other "related" suits were also "targets."        These are




                                           51
     inconceivable allegations of Public Officials targeting not only other Public Officials and

     Whistleblowers such as Anderson and Corrado but private citizens in lawsuit against

     them.   Public Officials committing CRIMINAL ACTS to intentionally OBSTRUCT

     mSTICE using, on information and belief, ILLEGALLY OBSTAINED PUBLIC

     RESOURCES and FUNDS to finance and operate these criminal activities and

     obstructions.   That these acts committed to "Obstruct Justice" in these proceedings,

     through a variety of racketeering style behavior, aid and abet further the criminal

     activities of Defendants in the Anderson lawsuit and the legally related lawsuits and

     continue to violate Plaintiffs rights through continued denial of due process and

     procedure, through continued legal process abuse and continued Fraud on this Court.


II. DENIAL OF COUNSEL THROUGH EXTORTION

  38. That these events have deprived Plaintiff not only Due Process under Law from the

     Obstructions but these Obstructions are unique, as they come from Attorney at Law

     Regulatory Agencies that are named Defendants in this RICO and which have added a

     new level of Obstruction in denying Plaintiffs the ability to seek legal counsel due to their

     control over the legal processes and Attorneys at Law. That any Attorney at Law after

     reading the exhibited articles herein would be crazy not fearing becoming the next

     "target" of the Attorney at Law Regulatory Agencies and being disbarred, fired,

     blackballed or worse. Where the Criminal RICO Enterprise described in the Amended




                                              52
Complaint and RICO Statement is composed mainly of Criminals who are disguised as

Attorneys at Law and through misuse of these legal titles,


 I.   the Criminal Legal Cartel operates a variety of L~w Firms to run complex legal

      crimes, for example, bankruptcy scams, real      esta~e   scams, securities scams, estate

      scams, family court scams and more.

11.   the Criminal Legal Cartel employs Criminals who are disguised as Attorneys at Law

      and peppered with legal degrees that may be false degrees according to the articles

      herein with non-lawyers being handed legal "degrees" by the "Cleaner" Goldstein.

ui. the Criminal Legal Cartel employs Criminals disguised as Attorneys at Law to act as

      Judges in State and Federal Cases

iv.   the Criminal Legal Cartel employs Criminals disguised as Public Officials whom

      are inserted into various government agencies both state and federal to derail any

      investigations into their criminal activities.

The articles cited herein clearly show that the Criminals are disguised as Attorneys at

Law and any Principled and Ethical Attorneys at Law that are attempting to help

Plaintiffs prosecute these Criminals disguised as Attorneys at Law then become targeted

by other Criminal Attorneys at Law who are misusing their Public Offices and illegally

using a mass of public funds and resources to then target Good Guy Whistleblowers like

Anderson and Corrado.        Anderson and Corrado two credible experts in ATTORNEY

MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS, Good Gal Attorneys at Law, acting as Good Guy




                                            53
   Public Officers and trying to do the right thing by helping victims, who then risk their

   lives to expose before this Court these schemes of their superiors gone rogue, including

   those at the highest outposts of the New York Supreme Court Attorney at Law

   Regulatory Agencies and look how wonderfully they have been treated.


39. That these news articles when viewed through the eye of an Attorney at Law looking to

   help Plaintiffs, who sees that they too will be "targets" and disbarred or worse, now acts

   to block Due Process by denying and disabling Plaintiffs rights to have honest Attorneys

   at Law represent their cases who do not fear this kind of "targeted" blowback. Especially

   when the blowback is from the very legal regulatory agencies that control their licenses to

   practice law and that can strip them of their license and livelihood if they help Plaintiffs

   that will prosecute and expose them for their crimes. The New York Supreme Court

   Disciplinary Departments are in fact seen as the criminal villain in these articles, found

   Wiretapping, Infiltrating and Subverting the United States Joint Terrorism Task Force to

   "target" innocent civilians, Patriot Act Violations against targeted innocent civilians,

   Whistleblowers and other "targets" of GOVERNMENT AGENCY ROGUE ACTORS,

   now targeting even the Judges that are trying to be Good Guy Judges and prosecute these

   corrupted state regulatory agencies in the courts, since most Judges are Attorneys at Law,

   again they too are under oversight by the Attorney at Law Disciplinary Committees and

   State Bars that are controlled by the Criminal Legal Cartel, top down.       Plaintiff being

   Pro Se and all is not well versed in the Art of Law as Your Honor but the number of




                                            54
   crimes alleged in just this last paragraph is overwhelming to count and so disabling to our

   System of Jurisprudence and Government as to constitute a Treason via a Coup D'etat to

   disable Law at the Highest Outpost of Law. A lawless legal system disabling the laws

   that regulate Wallstreet Lawyers, who are really criminals disguised as W allstreet

   Lawyers and yes these very same criminals are now found behind the collapse of world

   markets and yes, the fox is in the henhouse and humanity is being slaughtered and there

   is no justice and so this Court must now make a stand to join force with either injustice or

   justice and restore law and order, one court at time, starting here.


40. That while the 6th Amendment was designed primarily for criminal defendants, there are

   also special circumstances, like those in this Lawsuit and the related to Anderson lawsuits

   that would allow this Court to grant similar rights to granting counsel that is also vetted

   for conflict and then protected from backlash to represent Plaintiff in this civil case.

   Especially where the right to counsel is being interfered with by criminal acts by those

   charged with upholding such rights who are also Defendants in this lawsuit.


41. That really, this Court cannot over look yet another "insider" Whistleblower named in

   these articles, now with the US Attorney admitting to having ILLEGALLY TAPPED

   ANDERSON, JUDGES CHAMBERS and "TARGETS" in efforts to intentionally

   "Obstruct Justice." A whistleblower who claims to have been so contracted to perform

   these illegal Obstructions by Defendants in this RICO and others in Public Offices. The

   "Whistleblower" Frederic Celani whom is claimed in the articles to be working with




                                             55
     Federal Agents has already turned over evidence that includes video/audio recordings,

     eyewitness accounts of Public Officials meeting him in odd places, millions of

     documents and statements that he was contracted to "Target" victims with the direct

     intent to Obstruct Justice.   Obstructions admittedly done through a host of FELONY

     VIOLATIONS TO DEPRIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of Plaintiffs in Anderson

     and the related cases through these abuses of legal process and procedure,

     misappropriations of state and federal funds and resources to so achieve these illegal

     activities under the color of law with Criminals disguised as Attorneys at Law who run

     the Attorney Disciplinary Committees. Can't make this shit up.


III.RE OPEN AND REHEAR BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE OF NEW RICO

  CRIMINAL ACTS COMMITTED AGAINST PLAINTIFF BY SEVERAL

  DEFENDANTS IN THIS RICO, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ABUSE OF

  LEGAL PROCESS, THEFT OF INHERITANCE, POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT OF

  DEFENDNATS IN THE ALLEGED MURDER OF SIMON L. BERNSTEIN.

  42. That the criminal acts against Plaintiffs and others rights to privacy and property

     described herein again illustrate a pattern and practice of new and ongoing RICO activity

     against Plaintiff and again reveal misuse of Public Offices by criminals disguised as

     Public Officials, who are providing continued cover for criminal activities, usually run

     through rogue Law Firms, used to jnfiltrate and derail due process and commit FRAUD

     ON THE COURT(S) and FRAUD in Regulatory Agencies and Prosecutorial offices, as




                                             56
   evidenced by CREDIBLE EYEWITNESS WHISTLEBLOWERS in the related Anderson

   case. These are not claims by the less than artful Pro Se Plaintiff claims of conspiracy,

   these are from long standing and outstanding members (heroes) of the legal systems,

   credible experts in the art of Attorney at Law Misconduct making these claims. This is

   irrefutable evidence this Court can no longer deny and make claims that Plaintiffs has

   failed to state a claim, etc. this is irrefutable fact of evidence of a massive conspiracy

   affecting Plaintiff's lawsuit from the start, his life and wellbeing and that of his families.

   Provisions against Conspiracies to Interfere with Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985) 42

   U.S.C. § 1985 grants a civil cause of action for damages caused by various types of

   conspiracies aimed at injuring a person in his/her person or property, or denying him/her

   a Federal right or privilege.      § 1985 mainly deals with three instances of conspiracy:

   those aimed at preventing an officer from performing his/her duties; those aimed at

   obstructing justice by intimidating a party, witness, or juror; and those aimed at depriving

   a person's rights or privileges.


43. That the following NEW legal actions involving Plaintiff and certain Defendants in this

   Lawsuit, including but not limited to, central conspirators of the original criminal acts of

   Intellectual Property Theft from Plaintiff by his retained Intellectual Property Law Firms

   Defendants Proskauer, Greenberg Traurig and Foley & Lardner, show a continued pattern

   of criminal activity designed against Plaintiff to cause harms in a variety of ways, typical

   of Criminal RICO Enterprises.




                                              57
44. That in each of the legal actions described below, other than the estate actions, it should

   be noted by this Court that Plaintiff Bernstein is the defendant and is somehow or another

   dragged into these actions regarding himself and his companies Iviewit and his

   Intellectual Properties, without any service and all roads that lead back to a nexus of

   Defendants involvement in all of them. Plaintiff is often inserted to these actions in

   bizarre and illegal ways, with judgments and rulings allegedly against him and his

   companies, defaming him and accusing him in rulings and published articles of Felony

   crimes he has never been tried or prosecuted or even accused of, all in efforts to smear

   him, make false judgments and liens against him, all in actions he has never been a party

   too and has asserted no defenses on his behalf, in many cases not even knowing the cases

   existed until after rulings and determinations were made.


45. That these continuing conspiratorial acts are designed to continue legal process abuse

   against Plaintiff, in order to,


    v. harass and defame him through legal process abuse,

    vi. to commit theft of personal property and inheritance through legal process abuse,

   VIL    to gain false judgments and liens against Plaintiff through legal process abuse, liens

          to pursue if Plaintiff is to receive an expected inheritance, and

  VIII.   to target and shut down individuals and others who are publishing information

          regarding Plaintiff's RICO, the legally related cases, Your Honor and many of the

          Defendants in these cases.




                                               58

                                                                                                   /r ·
                                                                                                   z,~
                                                                                                   7
                                                                                                         '-
        All of these legal process abuses are committed through new Frauds on a variety of

        courts, Frauds on Public Offices and now Fraud in Public Agencies around the world, as

        defined further herein. The list of new legal actions involving Plaintiff and key

        Defendant Law Firms, include but are not limited to all of the following:

OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP, LLC ET AL V. COX
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-00057-HZ (HEREBY FULLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
IN ENTIRETY HEREIN, ALL PLEADINGS, ORDERS, ETC.)28

     46. That on January 2011 Obsidian V. Cox was Filed in the District of Oregon.


     47. That this case involves Crystal Cox ("Cox") who is an investigative journalist reporting

        on the Plaintiffs and Defendants in the Anderson and Legally Related Cases.


     48. That Cox has now also become the target of several central Defendants of this RICO and

         ANTITRUST Lawsuit through LEGAL PROCESS ABUSE and more.


     49. That now these same Defendants m this RICO are now inextricably bound to the

        Obsidian lawsuit.


     50. That upon my knowledge, information and belief, The Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal

         Cox trial was in November of 2011, there was a $2.5 million dollar verdict rendered to

         Cox. At this time, Crystal Cox was the only named defendant in that case, the only

         defendant on trial, and the only defendant in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox,

         whatsoever.

28
  Response To Demand for Summary Judgment. Objection to Summary Judgment for Damages.
http://ia600403.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.ord. l 0 I 036/gov.uscourts.ord.101036.25.0 pdf




                                                         59
         51. That six months after a judgment was issued against Cox in the case, which is now on

             appeal with the famed First Amendment Rights Attorney at Law and Professor Eugene

             Volokh, Esq., Professor at UCLA School of Law representing Cox, attempts were made

             to add Plaintiff Bernstein via a «Supplemental Motion" to the Obsidian lawsuit as a

             defendant and have him added to a 2. 5 Million Dollar Judgment. After the case was

             already decided and on appeal and Plaintiff was not ever before a party or even

             mentioned in the suit1 29


         52. That several hours after the filing of this "Supplemental Complaint" the Judge struck it

             from the record, as indicated in the Docket report below.



r--· -------1--·                                               -                 --·            -             .- -
    05/11 12012      1136    ISTRICKEN per order of 5/11/2012. Supplemental Complaint. (statutory fee
'                                 exempt status seJected) Jury Trial Requested: Yes. Filed by Obsidian Finance            .
!                    I       II   Group, LLC, Kevin D. Padrick against All Defendants. (Aman, David) Modified on          !
                                  5/11 /2012 (mr). (Entered : 05/11 12012)                                                ·
                     1
: 05/11/2012         I 137   ISTRICKEN per order of 5/11/2012. Proposed Summon~~~~;mstein Filed
1
                     !
                     !
                             I by All Plaintiffs. (JI.man, David)
                             I
                                                                    Modified on 5/11 /2012 (mr). (Entered: 05/11 /2012)

f 051111:2012- -- . j1 3aT oRDER: STRIKING the supplemental c~mplaint 136 an-d proposed
                     I       Isummons 137 for failure to comply with FRCP 15(d) which requires that the party
                     !       1 seeking to file a supplemental complaint do so by motion. Fed . R. Civ. P.
                     i       ] 15(d); see also Connectu, LLC v . Zuckerberg, 522 F .3d 82, 90 (1st Cir. 2008)
                             I (supplemental complaint cannot be filed as a matter of course) .                           ,

                               In any motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, plaintiffs are requested to
                               thoroughly address, with relevant authority, the following issues: (1) this Court's
                                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                          •1'




                               jurisdiction over the matter given that a Notice of Appeal has be en filed; (2)
                             l whether a supplemental complaint is allowed post-judgment; (3) why the alleged             I
                               fraudulent transfer claim should be raised in a supplemental complaint as


                             I
                                                                     _______ ____
                               opposed to bringing it in a new action. Ordered by Judge Marco A . Hernandez .
                               Copy of this order emailed and mailed to defendant Crystal Cox. (mr) (Entered:
                                                                                    "




    29
       SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT (FRAUDULENT TRANSFER)
    http://ia600403 .us .archive .org/9/items/gov uscourts.ord. l 01036/gov.uscourts.ord. l 01036.136.0.pdf




                                                               60
r
I
I
                    I____________,____________
               L_~, 0511112012)




    53. That upon my knowledge, information and belief, the District of Oregon court by Judge

       Marco Hernandez within hours denied this FRAUDULENT attempt to add Bernstein as a

       defendant in the lawsuit after the fact and yet this reveals another instance of attempted

       Fraud on that Court through abuse of process by these criminal Attorneys at Law in

       efforts to secure judgments against me. However, despite this attempt being denied by

       that Court, Bernstein now appears to be a defendant on the docket of that lawsuit, despite

       never having been a defendant nor ever being served in the suit, this acts to defame and

       damage Plaintiff despite the ruling anyone looking up the case sees him as a Defendant

       and may presume the Judgment was rendered against him too.          That this constitutes

       further RICO acts against Plaintiff in harassing him through further Abuse of Process and

       more.


    54. That upon my knowledge, information and belief, the District of Oregon court by Judge

       Marco Hernandez strikingly however failed to docket the Counter Defendants sued by

       Cox in her Counter Complaint.


    55. That upon my knowledge, information and belief, David S. Aman is a lawyer with

       Tonkon Torp Law Firm in Portland Oregon. David Aman is counsel for Obsidian Finance

       Group and Kevin D. Padrick, in the legal action Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox.

       (District of Oregon 3:11-cv-00057-HZ ). David S. Aman was involved in the Summit




                                               61
   bankruptcy in which Crystal Cox, an investigative blogger had been reporting on for 3

   years. And Aman was named in an objection to the fees legal action filed by Stephanie

   Studebaker Deyoung, and other Summit bankruptcy investors and creditors. David S.

   Aman deposed Crystal Cox' s "source'', the Summit bankruptcy whistleblower Stephanie

   DeYoung years prior to Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, and knew the role that

   Crystal Cox played in the reporting of the Summit bankruptcy case. David S. Aman filed

   a legal action against Crystal Cox for 10 million dollars, on behalf of Plain riff Kevin D.

   Padrick, bankruptcy trustee. This legal action was to shut down the biogs of investigative

   blogger Crystal Cox, as these biogs exposed the details of a $40 million dollar Oregon

   bankruptcy. These biogs also expose and link to the details of the Iviewit companies

   Intellectual Property thefts and wholly cover this RICO lawsuit and the related lawsuits.

   The blogs also tie the involvement of Tonkon Torp clients Enron and Intel and where

   Plaintiff alleges that attempted thefts of Plaintiffs Intellectual Properties were the

   primary reason by which Enron collapsed through their Enron Broadband Division and

   led to Arthur Andersen's collapse.


56. That upon my knowledge, information and belief, in December of 2011, after a phone

   conference with Cox, Free Speech I Porn Industry Attorney Marc J. Randazza

   ("Randazza") of Randazza Legal Group began negotiating a deal with David S. Aman,

   attorney for Obsidian. Randazza had no agreement with Cox to represent her and was

   attempting to stop Cox from appealing Obsidian v. Cox to the Ninth Circuit. Randazza




                                           62
   conspired with Aman to negotiate a deal to stop the appeal, and did not ever tell Cox

   what the details of this negotiation were. Cox later found out from another attorney of the

   first amendment bar. Randazza had told members that he represented Cox in the matter of

   her appeal, and so they stayed away. Randazza's negotiation was exposed by UCLA

   professor Eugene Volokh to Cox, and Volokh has become Cox's counsel, retained under

   contract with Mayer Brown for her appeal.


57. That upon my knowledge, information and belief, in retaliation, early in 2012, Porn

   Industry Attorney Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group, conspired with Attorney

   Aman, to set Crystal Cox up for the crime of extortion. Aman initiated this defamatory

   campaign with an email out of context to the New York Times that was one email out of

   5 in a settlement negotiation with Cox. Aman and Randazza conspired to discredit and

   defame Cox and together convinced Judge Hernandez, and from there the world through

   Big Media and legal bloggers, that Cox had extorted them, though no extortion complaint

   was ever filed against her or Plaintiff and where once again, Plaintiff is inserted into the

   decisions accusing him and defaming him in the process now of extortion and more.

   Randazza assisted Aman in attempting to seize blogs, domain names and shut down the

   reporting of Cox, by filing motions for a receiver named Lara Pearson whom Randazza

   had used before in the Righthaven cases. This receiver was to take domain names and

                                                                         ,
   blogs of Crystal Cox and domain names belonging to Plaintiff Bernstein_ iViewit, who




                                            63



                                                                                                  · 4f
     seemed out the blue to suddenly months after the cases was decided to come of interest in

     the case, though suspected to have been planned all along.


  58. That after gaining this ill-gotten, erroneous and unconstitutional judgment, Tonkon Torp

     Law Firm's David Aman and Kevin D. Padrick then conspired with journalists for the

     New York Times and Forbes to publish stories that would use this judgment to discredit

     and defame Plaintiff and Cox by the falsely creating an appearance that they were

     involved and convicted for criminal activities and more.


OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP LLC AND KEVIN D PADRICK VS CRYSTAL COX
CASE NUMBER: 2:2012MC00017, FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2012, WASHINGTON
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, SPOKANE OFFICE, PRESIDING JUDGE: JAMES P.
HUTTON

  59. That on information and belief this case is related matter to the Obsidian case above,

     although the reason for this case remains unknown.


WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORG (WIPO)- (CT) D2011-0675
COMPLAINANT PROSKAUER ROSE V. COX AND BERNSTEIN (HEREBY FULLY
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN ENTIRETY HEREIN, ALL COMPLAINTS,
SUBMISSIONS, RULINGS, DETERMINATIONS, ETC.)

  60. That on April 2011 Proskauer Rose filed a WIPO Complaint against Crystal Cox and

     again Eliot Bernstein is somehow inserted throughout the case, WIPO Case Numbers,

     (TG) D201 l-0678, (CT) D201 l-0679,(CT) D201 l-0677, (CT) D20 1 l-0675.


  61. That RICO Central Conspirator Defendant Proskauer Rose files this WIPO action in an

     attempt to scrub the web of Cox sites and news articles reporting and investigating this




                                             64
   Lawsuit, the related lawsuits and Defendant Proskauer in efforts to seize and shut down

   her sites and domains.


62. That Proskauer loses to Cox in this action yet Plaintiff appears named throughout.


63. That Proskauer attempted to choose a panelist, a one Peter L. Michaelson to hear this

   action who in the end however was disqualified for unknown reasons at that time. That

   later Plaintiff learned that Michaelson is wholly conflicted with, including but not limited

   to, Defendants Proskauer, Rubenstein, Judith Kaye, J\.'!PEG and others in this RICO

   lawsuit, how typical of Proskauer to try and slip a conflict in.


64. That Dawn Osborne also recused herself from this action for unknown reasons at this

   time.


65. That the decisions in this matter can be found at the following url ' s,


           Defendant Proskauer' s Joseph Leccese v. Crystal Cox

           http://www. wi po.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0679

           Defendant Proskauer's Allen Fagin v. Crystal Cox

           http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp? case=D2011-0678

           Defendant/Counsel for Proskauer/Pro Se Counsel Gregg M. Mashberg v. Crystal

           Cox

           http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D201 l-0677

           Proskauer Rose LLP v. Leslie Turner (Cox was Respondent)




                                              65
EXHIBIT 30 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE




                 .      ·.;ti~i. ,
                     .?:.l~~ y·:·.~~¥.··,


               A
                                   ..       )

                                            .
                                            .

                                     . .



               1
                                       I-VIEW-IT HOLDING5, INC.
                                    I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




               CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COi) DISCLOSURE FORM




                                                                            1
                                "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch 'intrate"
                                       whom fail to heed this form.




       THIS COi MUST BE SIGNED AND RETURNED PRIOR TO ANY
                         ACTION BY YOU IN THESE MATTERS

          Please accept and return signed, the following Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form (COi) before
continuing further with adjudication, review or investigation of the attached PETITION to the

          CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, Probate Division, Cases No.
          502012CP004391XXXXSB Simon L. Bernstein and Case No. 502011CP000653XXXXSB
          Shirley Bernstein, titled,

          PETITION TO:

          PETITION TO: FREEZE ESTATE ASSETS, APPOINT NEW PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES,
          INVESTIGATE FORGED AND FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT




1
    il Somma Poeta ~Durante degli Alighieri, "Divina Commedia" 1308-1321 Canto III
                                                           E
                             CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSUR FORM
                     CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL

         AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, RESCIND SIGNATURE OF ELIOT BERNSTEIN IN
         ESTATE OF SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN AND MORE

         The Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form is designed to ensure that the review and any
determination from such review of the enclosed materials should not be biased by any conflicting
financial interest or any other conflicting interest by those reviewers responsible for the handling of this
confidential information. Whereby any conflict with any of the main alleged perpetrators of the alleged
crimes referenced in these matters herein, or any other perpetrators not known at th is time, must be fully
disclosed in writing and returned by anyone reviewing these matters prior to making ANY determination.

         Disclosure forms with "Yes" answers, by any party, to any of the following questions, are
demanded not to open the remainder of the documents or opine in any manner, until the signed COi is
reviewed and approved by the lviewit companies and Eliot I. Bernstein. If you feel that a Conflict of
Interest exists that cannot be eliminated through conflict resolution with the lviewit Companies or Eliot
Bernstein, instantly forward the matters to the next available reviewer that is free of conflict that can sign
and complete the requisite disclosure. Please identify conflicts that you have, in writing, upon
term inating your involvement in the matters to the address listed at the end of this disclosure form for
lviewit companies or Eliot I. Bernstein. As many of these alleged perpetrators are large law firms, lawyers,
members of various state and federal courts, officers of federal, state and local law enforcement and
regulatory agencies, careful review and disclosure of any conflict with those named herein is pertinent in
your continued handling of these matters objectively.

         These matters already involve claims of, including but not limited to, Conflicts of Interest,
Violations of Public Offices, Whitewashing of Official Complaints in the Supreme Courts of New York,
Florida, Virginia and elsewhere, Threatening a Federal Witness in a "legally related" Federal
Whistleblower Lawsuit, Document Destruction and Alteration, Obstructions of Justice, RICO, ATIEMPTED
MURDER and m uch more. The need for prescreening for conflict is essential to the admin istration of due
process in these matters and necessary to avoid charges of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and more, against
you . US Federal District Court Judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, legally related the matters to a New York
Supreme Court Attorney Whistleblower Lawsuit of Ch ri stine C. Anderson, Esq. who alleges similar claims
of public office corruption against Supreme Court of New York Officials, US Attorneys, NY District
Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys. Therefore, this Conflict Check is a formal request for full
disclosure of any conflict on your part, such request conforming with all applicable state and fede ral laws,
public office rules and regulations, attorney conduct codes and judicial canons or othe r international law
and treatises requiring disclosure of conflicts and disqualification from these matters where conflict
precludes involvement.

         Failure to comply with all applicable conflict disclosure rules, public office rules and regulations,
and, state, fede ral and international laws, prior to continued action on your pa rt, shall constitute cause
for the filing of crim inal and civil complaints against you for any decisions or actions you make prior to a
signed Conflict Of Interest Disclosure Form. Charges will be filed against you fo r fai lure to comply.
Complaints will be filed with all appropriate authorities, including but not limited to, the appropriate
Federal, State, Local and International Law Enforcement Agencies, Public Integrity Officials, Judicial




I-View-It Confident ial                          Page 2 of 66                       Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                             CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                     CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fl

Conduct Officials, State and Federal Bar Associations, Disciplinary Departments and any/all other
appropriate agencies.

           I.       Do you, your spouse and your dependents, in the aggregate, have any direct or indirect
  relations, relationships or interest(s) in any entity, or any of the parties listed in EXHIBIT 1 of this
  document, or any of the named Defendants in these matters contained at the URL,
  http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Appendix%20A/index.htm#proskauer ? Please review the online index
  in entirety prior to answering, as there are several thousand persons and entities.
  _ _NO             _ _YES


  Please describe in detail any relations, relationships, interests and conflicts, on a separate and
  attached sheet, fully disclosing all information. If the answer is Yes, please describe the relations,
  relationships, interests and conflicts, and, affirm whether such conflicts or interests present a conflict
  of interest that precludes fair review of the matters contained herein without undue bias or prejudice
  of any kind.

          II.      Do you, your spouse and your dependents, in the aggregate, have any direct or indirect
  relations, relationships or interest(s), in any entity, or any direct or indirect relations, relationships or
  interest(s), to ANY other known, or unknown person, or known or unknown entity, not named herein,
  which will cause your review of the materials you are charged with investigating to be biased by any
  conflicting past, present, or future financial interest(s) or any other interest(s)?
  _ _NO             _ _YES

  Please describe in detail any relations, relationships, interests and conflicts, on a separate and
  attached sheet, fully disclosing all information. If the answer is Yes, please describe the relations,
  relationships and interests, and, affirm whether such conflicts or interests present a conflict of
  interest that precludes fair review of the matters contained herein without undue bias or prejudice of
  any kind.

        Ill.      Do you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, receive salary or other
  remuneration or financial considerations from any person or entity related in any way to the parties
  defined in Question I, including but not limited to, campaign contributions whether direct, "in kind" or
  of any type at all?
  _ _ NO           __YES

  Please describe in detail any interests or conflicts, on a separate and attached sheet, fully disclosing
  all information regarding the conflicts or considerations. If the answer is Yes, please describe the
  relations, relationships and I or interests, and, affirm whether such conflicts or interests present a
  conflict of interest that precludes fair review of the matters contained herein without undue bias or
  prejudice of any kind.

        IV.       Have you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, had any prior
  communication(s}, including but not limited to, phone, facsimile, e-mail, mail, verbal, etc., with any
  person related to the proceedings of lviewit, Eliot Ivan Bernstein or the related matters in anyway and
  parties in Question I?
  _ _ NO         _ _YES




I-View-It Confidential                           Page 3 of 66                       Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                             CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM

                     CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL


  Please describe in detail any identified communication(s) on a separate and attached sheet fully
  disclosing all information regarding the communication(s). If the answer is Yes, please describe the
  communication(s) in detail, including but not limited to, who was present, what type of
  communication, the date and time, length, what was discussed, please affirm whether such
  communication(s) present a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue
  bias or prejudice of any kind.

          V.        I have run a thorough and exhaustive Conflict of Interest check, conforming to any/all,
  state, federal and local laws, public office rules and regulations, and, any professional association rules
  and regulations, regarding disclosure of any/all conflicts. I have verified that my spouse, my
  dependents, and I, in the aggregate, have no conflicts with any parties or entities to the matters
  referenced herein. I understand that any undisclosed conflicts, relations, relationships and interests,
  will result in criminal and civil charges filed against me both personally and professionally.
  _ _ NO             _ _ YES

        VI.       I have notified all parties with any liabilities regarding my continued actions in these
  matters, including state agencies, shareholders, bondholders, auditors and insurance concerns or any
  other person with liability that may result from my actions in these matters as required by any laws,
  regulations and public office rules I am bound by.
  _ _ NO          _ _ YES




     RELEVANT SECTIONS OF JUDICIAL CANNONS, ATIORNEY CONDUCT CODES AND LAW

                                 Conflict of Interest Laws & Regulations

Conflict of interest indicates a situation where a private interest may influence a public
decision. Conflict of Interest Laws are Laws and designed to prevent Conf licts of Interest that
deny fair and impartial due process and procedure thereby Obstructing Justice in State and
Federal, Civil and Criminal Proceedings. These Laws may contain provisions related to financial
or asset disclosure, exploitation of one's official position and privileges, improper
relationships, regulation of campaign practices, etc. The Relevant Sections of Attorney
Conduct Codes, Judicial Cannons, Public Office Rules & Regulations and State & Federal Law
listed herein are merely a benchmark guide and other stat e, federal and international laws,
rules and regulations may be applicable to your particular circumstances in reviewing or acting
in these matters. For a more complete list of applicable sections of law relating to these
matters, please visit the URL,

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/index.htm# Toc107852933,

fully incorporated by reference in entirety herein.




I-View-It Confidential                          Page 4 of 66                      Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                                     CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                          CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL

New York State Consolidated Laws Penal

ARTICLE 200 BRIBERY INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND RELATED OFFENSES
S 200.03 Bribery in the second degree
S 200.04 Bribery in the first degree
S 200.05 Bribery; defense
S 200.10 Bribe receiving in the third degree
S 200.11 Bribe receiving in the second degree
S 200.12 Bribe receiving in the first degree
S 200.15 Bribe receiving; no defense
S 200.20 Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree
S 200.22 Rewarding official misconduct in the first degree S 200.25 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree
S 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree
S 200.30 Giving unlawful gratuities
S 200.35 Receiving unlawful gratuities
S 200.40 Bribe giving and bribe receiving for public office; definition of term
S 200.45 Bribe giving for public office
S 200.50 Bribe receiving for public office
ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS
S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree. S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
S 175.15 Falsifying business records; defense
S 175.20 Tampering with public records in the second degree
S 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree
S 175.30 Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree
S 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree
NY Constitution ARTICLE XIII Public Officers
Public Officers - Public Officers ARTICLE 1
ARTICLE 2 Appointment and Qualification of Public Officers - ARTICLE 15 ATIORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
S 468-b. Clients· security fund of the state of New York
S 476-a. Action for unlawful practice of the law
S 476-b. Injunction to restrain defendant from unlawful practice of the law
S 476-c. Investigation by the attorney-general
S 487. Misconduct by attorneys
S 488. Buying demands on which to bring an action.
Public Officers Law SEC 73 Restrictions on the Activities Of Current and Former State Officers and Employees
Public Officers Law SEC 74 Code of Ethics
Conflicts of Interest Law, found in Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter, the City's Financial Disclosure Law, set forth in section
12-110 of the New York City Administrative Code, and the Lobbyist Gift Law, found in sections 3-224 through 3-228 of the
Administrative Code.


TITLE 18 FEDERAL CODE & OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of
the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military
authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
A federal judge, or any other government officia l, is required as part of the judge's mandatory administrative duties, to receive any
offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice
statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.
Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not
themselves involved in the federal crime.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to
perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to
perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
 Fraud upon the court

FRAUD on the COURT




I-View-It Confidential                                      Page 5 of 66                               Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                                     CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                           CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired
in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and
fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.
 Officers of the court include: Lawyers, Judges, Referees, and those appointed; Guardian Ad Litem, Parenting Time Expeditors,
Mediators, Rule 114 Neutrals, Evaluators, Administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial
mechanism.
 "Fraud upon the court" ha s been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or
attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in
the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication". Kenner v. C.l.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7
Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 'II 60.23
 In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to
the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury .... It is where
the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial
function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding? "Fraud upon the
court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.



TITLE 18 PART I CH 11
Sec. 201. Bribery of public officials and w itnesses
Sec. 225. - Continuing financial crimes enterprise
BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Sec. 205. - Activities of officers and employees in claims aga inst and other matters affecting the Government
Sec. 208. - Acts affecting a personal financial interest
Sec. 210. - Offer to procure appoi ntive public office
Sec. 225. - Continuing financial crimes enterprise
TITLE 18 PART I CH 79Sec1623 - False decla rations before grand jury or court
Sec 654 - Officer or employee of United States converting property of another
TITLE 18 PART I CH 73 Sec 1511- Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96Sec1961 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT Organ izations ("RICO")
            Section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice),
            Section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations)
            Section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement),
            Section 1952 (relating to racketeering),
            Section 1957 (relating to engagi ng in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity),
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (A) RICO
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (B) RICO
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (C) RICO
TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 SEC 1962 (D) RICO
TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 CONSPIRACY Sec 371 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENSE OR TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES
TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1957 Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful
activity
TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 Sec 1031- Major fraud against the United States


Judicial Cannons

What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"
    Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
    In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer wou ld entertain reasonable
questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and
impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added] . Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
    Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of
partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or
prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the
appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not
intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial
process.").




I-View-It Confidential                                       Page 6 of 66                                Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                                       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                            CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL

    That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might
reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the
Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
    The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v.
United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.ct.1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge
receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
     " Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not fi le affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to
recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances ." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
     Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification . The Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We th ink that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte,
even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
    Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not
disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partia li ty" which, possibly,
further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has
evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who
has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they ar e void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force
or effect.
    Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United
States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144,
but on the Due Process Clause.").
     Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/ her
property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference w ith interstate commerce". The judge has
acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner,
has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not
follow the law.
     If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not fo!Jow the Jaw as to non-represented litigants, then the judge
has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
     However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible t hat a judge may
not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required "
and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
    The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged
in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without
jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the
interference with interstate commerce.
     Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with
interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
[1.1] Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges.
The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be
independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public
confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.
Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoi d Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
(A) A judge shall respect and comply w ith the law and sha ll act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
[2.2][2A] The prohibition aga inst behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and
personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general
terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifica lly mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieti es under
this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is
whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with
integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.
Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently
(B) Adjudicative responsibilities.




I-View-It Confidential                                            Page 7 of 66                           Tuesday, April 30, 2013




                                                                                                                                              ff
                                    CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                          CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL

(I) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests,
public clamor or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.
(D) Disciplinary responsibilities.
(1) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a substantial violation of
this Part shall take appropriate action.
(2) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility shall take appropriate action.
(3) Acts of a judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities are part of a judge's judicial duties.
(E) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned
[3.11][3B(6)(e)] A judge may delegate the responsibilities of the judge under Canon 3B(6) to a member of the judge's staff. A judge
must make reasonable efforts, including the provision of appropriate supervision, to ensure that Section 3B(6) is not violated
through law clerks or other personnel on the judge's staff. This provision does not prohibit the judge or the judge's law clerk from
informing all parties individually of scheduling or administrative decisions.
[3 .21][3E(1)] Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless
whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment
with a law firm, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which that firm appeared, unless the disqualification was
waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.
[3.2 2][3E(1)] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider
relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.
Canon 4. A Judge May Engage in Extra-Judicial Activities To Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice
Canon 5. A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties


Public Office Conduct Codes New York

PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW Laws 1909, Chap. 51.
CHAPTER 47 OF THE CONSOLIDATED LAWS PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW
Sec. 17. Defense and indemnification of state officers and employees. 2 (b)
Sec. 18. Defense and indemnification of officers and employees of public entities.3 (b)
Sec. 74. Code of ethics.(2)(3)(4)
§ 73. Business or professional activities by state officers and employees and party officers.


NY Attorney Conduct Code

(a) "Differing interests" include every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment or the loyalty of a lawyer to a client,
whether it be a conflicting, inconsistent, diverse, or other interest.
CANON 5. A Lawyer Should Exercise Independent Professional Judgment on Behalf of a Client
DR 5-101 [1200.20] Conflicts of Interest- Lawyer's Own Interests.
DR 5-102 [1200.21] Lawyers as Witnesses.
DR 5-103 [1200.22] Avoiding Acquisition of Interest in Litigation.
DR 5-104 [1200.23] Transactions Between Lawyer and Client.
DR 5-105 [1200.24] Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation.
DR 5-108 [1200.27] Conflict of Interest - Former Client.
CANON 6. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Competently
CANON 7. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law
DR 7-102 [1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.
DR 7-110 [1200.41] Contact with Officials.
DR 8-101 [1200.42] Action as a Public Official.
DR 8-103 [1200.44] Lawyer Candidate for Judicial Office.
A. A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with section 100.5 of the Chief Administrator's Rules Governing Judicial
Conduct (22 NYCRR) and Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
CANON 9. A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety
DR 9-101 [1200.45] Avoiding Even the Appearance of Impropriety.


           I declare under pena lty of perjury and more that the foregoing statements in this CONFLICT OF
INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM are true and correct. Executed on this __ day, of_ _ _ _ __
20__ . I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudu lent statements or claims will subject me to criminal,



I-View-It Confidential                                      Page 8 of 66                              Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                             CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                     CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL

civil, or administrative penalties, including possible culpability in the RICO related crimes including the
alleged attempted murder of the inventor Eliot Bernstein and his wife and children in a terrorist styled
car-bombing attempt on their lives.




NOTE- THE CAR BOMBING IS NOT A SCENE OUT OF A WAR ZONE BUT INSTEAD TOOK PLACE IN BOYNTON BEACH FL


                                        More images@ www.iviewit.tv

         I agree to accept responsibility for the unbiased review, and presentation of findings to the
appropriate party(ies) who also have executed this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM prior to
review. A lack of signature will serve as evidence that I have accepted this document with undisclosed
conflict, relations, relationships or interests. In the event that I continue to represent these matters
without signing such COi first, this failure to sign and return the COi will act as a formal admission of such
conflicts, relations, relationships or interests and serve as Prima Facie evidence in the event criminal or
civil charges are brought against me.

Organization : CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL

Print FULL Name and Title




Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __                         Date _ __ _, ____ __, ____ _

         If you are unable to sign this CO i and are therefore unable to continue further to pursue these
matters, please attach a statement of whom we may contact as your replacement, in writing, within 10




I-View-It Confidential                          Page 9 of 66                       Tuesday, April 30, 2013




                                                                                                                 11
                            CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM

                    CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fl

business days to preclude legal actions against you for Obstruction of Justice and more. A copy can be
sent to iviewit@iviewit.tv and the original sent to the mailing address below:

Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv
http://www.iviewit.tv




I-View-It Confidential                        Page 10 of 66                      Tuesday, April 30, 2013




                                                                                                           {f
                            CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                     CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fl

          EXHIBIT 1 - PARTIAL LIST OF KNOWN CONFLICTED PARTIES

EXTENDED LIST OF DEFENDANTS INCLUDED IN THE AMENDED RICO
AND ANTITRUST LAWSUIT APPROVED BY FEDERAL JUDGE SHIRA A.
SCHEINDLIN.

**The first number is a total defendant, the second number after the period is a
number for each group.



    1.    PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP.
    2.    1.  ABRAHAM GUTWEIN                    3.     2.      DANIEL R. HALEM
    4.    3.  ADAM T. BERKOWITZ                  5.     4.      JORDANA T. BERMAN
    6.    5.  AIMEE M. ADLER                     7.     6.      IRA AKSELRAD
    8.    7.  ALAN B. HYMAN                      9.     8.      DAWN M. IRIZARRY
    10.   9.  ALAN M. HOFFMAN                    1l.    10.    DANIEL R. HOFFMAN
    12.   11. ALAN P. PARNES                     13.    12.    CHARLES H. PARSONS
    14.   13. ALEXANDER KAPLAN                   15.    14.    JEREMY RAPHAEL KASHA
    16.   15. ALIZA R. CINAMON                   17.    16.    KAREN E. CLARKE
    18.   17. ALIZA ROSS                         19.    18.    GARY ROSS
    20.   19. ALLEN I. FAGIN                     21.    20.    STACEY O'HAIRE FAHEY
    22.   21. ALLISON D. SONDAK                  23.    22.    ALEXIS SOTERAKIS
    24.   23. AMY F. MELICAN                     25 .   24.    SILVANA M. MERLINO
    26.   25. AMY J. DILCHER                     27.    26.    MALCOLM J . HARKINS, III
    28.   27. AMY J. WILLIAMS                    29.    28.    HOWARD WILSON
    30.   29. ANAVERMAL                          31.    30.    BALDASSARE VINTI
    32.   31. ANDRE G. CAST AYBERT               33.    32.    ROBERTA K. CHEVLOWE
    34.   33. ANDREA ROSENBLUM                   35.    34.    CORY W. EICHHORN
    36.   35. ANDREA S. RATTNER                  37.    36.    BRIANS. RAUCH
    38.   37. ANDREW D. LEVY                     39.    38.    FRED W. MATTLIN
    40.   39. ANDREW I. GERBER                   41.    40.    JAMES P. GERKIS
    42.   41. ANDREW M. GUTTERMAN                43 .   42.    CHARLES GUTTMAN
    44.   43. ANDYS.OH                           45 .   44.    DAVID P. OLENER
    46.   45. ANTHONY J. ONCIDI                  47.    46.    ANTHONY PACHECO
    48.   47. ANTHONY T. WLADYKA III             49.    48.    CHARLINE K. WRIGHT
    50.   49. AUDREY INGBER BENDER               51.    50.    SUSAN LEWIS BERGIN
    52.   51. AVITAIGOLD                         53.    52.    LEONP. GOLD
    54.   53. AVRAM E. MORELL                    55.    54.    DANIEL J. O'DONNELL


    56.   55.   BALDASSARE VINTI
    57.   56.   BEATRICE POLA                    58.    57.    MARIE PORTHE
    59.   58.   BELA P. AMLADI                   60.    59.    SUSAN AUFIERO
    61.   60.   BENJAMIN SPECIALE                62.    61.    BROOKE H. SPIGLER
    63.   62.   BERNARD M. HUSSON                64.    63.    WILLIAM KRISEL
    65.   64.   BERNARD M. PLUM                  66.    65.    JOHN F. POKORNY
    67.   66.   BERT H. DEIXLER                  68.    67.    JACK P. DICANIO
    69.   68.   BERTRAM A. ABRAMS                70.    69.    NEIL H. ABRAMSON
    71.   70.   BERTRAND C. SELLIER              72.    71 .   RONALDD. SERN.l\U




I-View-It Confidential                  Page 11of66                       Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                               CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                        CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL


    73.    72.    BRENDAN J. O'ROURKE                   74.    73.    STEVEN E. OBUS
    75.    74.    BRIAN B. MARGOLIS                     76.    75.    MICHAEL R. MARRA
    77.    76.    BRIAN JEFFREY GERSHENGORN             78.    77.    LOREN M. GESINSKY
    79.    78.    BRIAN L. FRIEDMAN                     80.    79.    DAVID C. FRIEDMAN
    81.    80.    BRUCE GORMAN JR.                      82.    81.    ALAK R. GOSWAMI
    83.    82.    CAROLE O'BLENES                       84.    83.    JENNIFER O'BRIEN
    85.    84.  CARRIE L. MITNICK                       86.    85.    JEREMY M. MITTMAN
    87.    86.  CELIA L. PAS SARO                       88.    87.    CARLA RAYNAL DE PASSOS
    89.    88.  CHARLES E. DROPKIN                      90.    89.    JENNIFER D. DUBERSTEIN
    91.    90.  CHRISTINE KENNY                         92.    91.    JUSTIN P. KILLIAN
    93.    92. CHRISTOPHER A. RAIMONDI                  94.    93.    STEPHEN L. RATNER
    95 .   94. CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER                   96.    95.    CHRISTINE ALBER
    97.    96. CHRISTOPHER L. PENNINGTON                98.    97.    MICHAEL J. PERLOFF
    99.    98. CHRISTOPHER WOLF                         100.   99.    MARK W. BATTEN
    101.   100. COLIN A. UNDERWOOD                      102.   101.   DAIN CHARLES LANDON
    103.   102. COLIN M. PAGE                           104.   103.   RICHARDS. REIG
    105.   104.   DAIN CHARLES LANDON                   106. 105. FRANCIS D. LANDREY
    107.   106.   DARYN A. GROSSMAN                     108. 107. CLAIRE P. GUTEKUNST
    109.   108.   DAVID G. MIRANDA                      110. 109. KIMBERLY A. MOTTLEY
    111.   110.   DAVID H. DIAMOND                      112.   111.   DONALD C. DOWLING JR.
    113.   112.   DAVID J. CERVENY                      114.   113.   CHRISTOPHER CHUNG
    115.   114.   DAVID J. WEINBERGER                   116.   115.   LAWRENCE I. WEINSTEIN
    117.   116.   DAVID M. ALIN                         118.   117.   JULIE M. ALLEN
    119.   118.   DAVID M. LEDERKRAMER                  120.   119.   ANDREW L. LEE
    121.   120.   DAVID N. ELLENHORN                    122.   121.   KLAUS EPPLER
    123.   122.   DEBORAH M. VERNON                     124.   123.   SCOTT WITONSKY
    125.   124.   DEVORA L. LINDEMAN                    126.   125.   ERICA LOOMBA
    127.   126.   DONALD E. 'ROCKY' THOMPSON II         128.   127.   STEPHANIE REED TRABAND
    129.   128.   DONALD W. SAVELSON                    130.   129.   GERALD W. SA WCZYN
    131.   130.   DONNA A. CORRIGAN                     132.   131.   PAULA M. CORSARO
    133.   132.   DOUGLAS C. RENNIE                     134.   133.   VICTORIA L. RICHTER
    135.   134.   DYLAN FORD                            136.   135.   TANYA L. FORSHEIT
    137.   136.   DYLAN S. POLLACK                      138.   137.   RENATAC. POMPA
    139.   138.   EBEN A. KRIM                          140.   139.   JUSTIN LUNDBERG
    141.   140.   EDWARD A. BRILL                       142.   141.   LAWRENCE H. BUDISH
    143.   142.   EDWARDS. KORNREICH                    144.   143.   RONALD S. KORNREICH
    145.   144.   EDWARDTROYWERNER                      146.   145.   MELISSA L. WESTBROOK
    147.   146.   ELANA GILAAD                          148.   147.   MARVIN M. GOLDSTEIN
    149.   148.   ELANA R. BUTLER                       150.   149.   PERRY A. CACACE
    151.   150.   ELENA ERACLEOUS                       152.   151.   BRUCE E. FADER
    153.   152.   ELIZABETH M. GARRETT                  154.   153.   JEFFREY GENTES
    155.   154.   ELLEN H. MOSKOWITZ                    156.   155.   THOMAS M. MULLINS JR.
    157.   156.   FRANK P. SCIBILIA                     158.   157.   JENNIFER R. SCULLION
    159.   158.   FREDERICK WARREN STRASSER             160.   159.   ERIC BRIAN TOPEL
    161.   160.   FREDRIC C. LEFFLER                    162.   161.   HOWARD N. LEFKOWITZ
    163.   162.   GAILS. PORT                           164.   163.   CAROLINE S. PRESS
    165.   164.   GAURAV MALHOTRA                       166.   165.   CONOR MALINOWSKI
    167.   166.   GEORGE A. PINCUS                      168.   167.   JURATE SCHWARTZ
    169.   168.   GEORGE D. KARIBJANIAN                 170.   169.   ARLENE KARIN KLINE
    171.   170.   GERALD E. WORTH                       172.   171.   KIMBERLY L. BARBAR




I-View-It Confidential                        Page 12 of 66                     Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                              CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                        CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL


    173. 172. GREGGM. MASHBERG                      174. 173. JESSICA MASTROGIOV ANNI
    175. 174. GWEN J. LOURIE                        176. 175. ADAl\1. M.. LUPION
    177. 176. HAROLD M. BRODY                       178. 177. LISA ANNE CALLIF
    179. 178. HARRY FRISCHER                        180. 179. JOHN F. FULLERTON III
    181. 180. HENRY 0. SMITH III                    182. 181. GERSHOM R. SMITH
    183. 182. HERSCHEL GOLDFIELD                    184. 183. HERMAN L. 'HANK' GOLDSMITH
    185. 184. HOWARD Z. ROBBINS                     186. 185. MARYTANGROCHA
    187. 186. IDO WARSHAVSKI                        188. 187. JAY D. WAXENBERG
    189. 188. ILISE S. ALBA                         190. 189. RORY JUDD ALBERT
    191. 190. ISAAC NESSER                          192. 191. KRISTIN H. NEUMAN
    193. 192. IVAN TABACK                           194. 193. YUVALTAL
    195.   194.   JACK P. JACKSON                   196. 195. ARNOLDS. JACOBS
    197.   196.   JACOB I. FRIEDMAN                 198.   197.   WILBUR H. FRIEDMAN
    199.   198.   JAMES E. GREGORY                  200.   199.   JOHN H. GROSS
    201.   200.   JAMES H. SHALEK                   202.   201.   PETERJ.W. SHERWIN
   203.    202.   JANICE K. SMITH                   204.   203.   JOHN H. SNYDER
   205.    204.   JASON D. FERNBACH                 206. 205.     ERIC M. FISHER
   207.    206.   JE JUN MOON                       208. 207.     EMERSON S. MOORE I
   209.    208.   JEAN-BAPTISTE MARTIN              210. 209.     GUILLAUME PERRIER
   211.    210.   JEAN-LUC CUADRADO                 212. 211.     CHRISTOPHE HENIN
   213.    212.   JEFFERY A. GROSS                  214. 213.     JESSICA A. HERTHEL
   215.    214.   JEFFREY A. LEHMAN                 216. 215.     HENRY J. LEIBOWITZ
   217.    216.   JEFFREY W ROSS                    218. 217.     LAWRENCE J. ROTHENBERG
   219.    218.   JEFFREY W. LEVITAN                220. 219.     JOSHUA L. LEVY
   221.    220.   JENNIFER A. CAMACHO               222. 221.     JOSEPH A. CAPRARO JR.
   223.    222.   JENNIFER E. BURNS                 224. 223.     DEVIN J. BURSTEIN
   225.    224.   JENNIFER MORRIS COHEN             226. 225.     MARY ELIZABETH DENO
   227.    226.   JEREMY M. BROWN                   228. 227.     EDWARD CERASIA II
   229.    228.   JEREMY P. OCZEK                   230. 229.     ERIK SAARMAA
   231.    230.   JEREMY R. FEINBERG                232. 231.     GLENN M. FEIT
   233.    232.   JEROLD D. JACOBSON                234. 233.     ALAN S. JAFFE
   235.    234.   JERRY L. DASTI                    236. 235.     1\fARK E. DAVIDSON
   237.    236.   JESSICA COHEN                     238. 237.     SAULS. COHEN
   239.    238.   JESSICA L. FREIHEIT               240. 239.     TAMMY D. FRIED
   241.    240.   JODY S. RIGER                     242. 241.     KRISTIN S. ROZIC
   243.    242.   JOHN C. STELLABOTTE               244. 243.     EMILY STERN
   245.    244.   JOHN M. FOX-SNIDER                246.   245.   ALBERT W. GORTZ
   247.    246.   JOHN R. SEEWALD JR.               248.   247.   ANNEN. SMITH
   249.    248.   JOHN SIEGAL                       250.   249.   ADAM D. SIEGARTEL
   251.    250.   JOHN W. RITCHIE                   252.   251.   SAMANTHA RIVKIND
   253.    252.   JOHNATHAN C. DUNCAN               254. 253.     SCOTT A. EGGERS
   255.    254.   JON A. BAUMGARTEN                 256. 255.     ROBERT M. PLAINTIFF
   257.    256.   JONATHAN E. RICH                  258. 257.     MARY H. ROSE
    259. 258. JONATHAN H. ORAM                      260. 259. CHARLES B. ORTNER
    261. 260. JORDAN B. LEADER                      262. 261. MICHAEL J. LEBOWICH
    263 . 262. JOSEPH C. O'KEEFE                    264. 263. JOANNE ORIZAL
    265.   264.   JOSEPH E. CASSON                  266.   265.   MARK A. CAT AN
    267.   266.   JOSEPH M. LECCESE                 268.   267.   JEREMY LECHTZIN
    269.   268.   JOSEPH Y. CHOI                    270.   269.   RICKY CHUNG
    271.   270.   JOSHUA A. STEIN                   272.   271.   TOM STEIN




I-View-It Confidential                    Page 13 of 66                     Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                             CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                       CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fl


   273. 272. JOSHUA D. PLAINTIFF                       274. 273. ERICH. BLINDERMAN
   275. 274. JOSHUA F. ALLOY                           276. 275. DAl"<IEL ALTCHEK
   277. 276. JOSHUA W. RUTHIZER                        278. 277. SCOTT K. RUTSKY
   279. 278. JUDSON L. HAND                            280.   279. LAURIE ELIZABETH HOLSEY
   281.    280.   JULIAN GOMEZ                         282.   281. STEVEN P. GONZALEZ
   283.    282.   KARA ELLICE SIMMONS                  284.   283. STEPHEN D. SOLOMON
   285.    284.   KATHLEEN F. PATERNO                  286.   285. JOSHUA J. POLLACK
   287.    286.   KATHY H. ROCKLEN                     288.   287. STEPHEN M. RODIN
   289.    288.   KELLY M. GALLIGAN                    290.   289. HOWARD L. GANZ
   291.    290.   KENNETH RUBENSTEIN                   292.   291. STEPHEN W. RUBIN
   293.    292.   KENNETH S. HILTON                    294.   293. RUSSELL L. HIRSCHHORN
   295 .   294.   KERRI L. STONE                       296.   295. SHANE JOSEPH STROUD
   297.    296.   KEVIN J. PERRA                       298.   297. MARK N. PERRIN
   299.    298.   KRISTEN W. PROHL                     300.   299. ROBERT M. PROJANS1'..'Y
   301.    300.   LARRY BLISS                          302.   301. BRADLEY R. BOBROFF
   303.    302.   LARRY M. LAVINSKY                    304.   303. MICHAEL S. LAZAROFF
   305.    304.   LARY ALAN RAPPAPORT                  306.   305. STEPHEN F. REED
   307.    306.   LAURA J. VARELA                      308.   307. ALLAN H. WEITZMAN
   309.    308.   LAUREN K. BOGLIVI                    310.   309. IRA G. BOGNER
   311.    310.   LAWRENCEJ. LIPSON                    312.   311. FRANKJ. LOPEZ
   313.    312.   LAWRENCE Z. LORBER                   314.   313. STEPHANIE L. MARN
   315.    314.   LEAH G. NEWKIRK                      316.   315. AMANDA H. NUSSBAUM
   317.    316.   LEEK. CRAWFORD                       318.   317. CHRISTINE D'ANGELO DE
                                                              BRETTEVILLE
   319. 318. LEEM. GOLDSMITH                           320.   319. RICHARD M. GOLDSTEIN
   321. 320. LEONARD S. BAUM                           322.   321. JOSEPH BAUMGARTEN
   323.    322.   LIA M. PISTILLI                      324.   323. BETTINA B. PLEV AN
   325.    324.   LINDA ZABRISKIE                      326.   325. ERIN ZAV ALKOFF
   327.    326.   LIONEL E. P ASHKOFF                  328.   327. DAVID A. RAPPAPORT
   329.    328.   LISA A. BAUER                        330.   329. EDWIN M. BAUM
   331.    330.   LISA A. CHIAPPETTA                   332.   331. MICHAEL J. CHIARA VALLOTI
   333.    332.   LISA A. HILL                         334.   333. ROBERT H. HORN
   335.    334.   LISA M. STERN                        336.   335. SETH A. STEVELMAN
   337.    336.   LLOYD B. CHINN                       338.   337. STEVEN R. CHIODINI
   339.    338.   LOUIS GRECO                          340.   339. EVAN S. GREENE
   341.    340.   LOUIS M. SOLOMON                     342.   341. ORI SOLOMON
   343 .   342.   M. DAVID ZURNDORFER                  344.   343.   ADAM CHRISTOPHER ABRAHMS
   345.    344.   MARA LAINIE TAYLOR                   346.   345.   SANJAY THAPAR
   347.    346.   MARA LERNER ROBBINS                  348.   347.   GAYLE COLEMAN
   349.    348.   MARC A. MANDELMAN                    350.   349.   EDWARD SCOTT MANHEIMER
   351.    350.   MARC ADAM PERSILY                    352.   351.   DAVID A. PICON
   353.    352.   MARC ELLIOT ALIFANZ                  354.   353.   HAROUTYUN ASATRIAN
   355.    354.   MARCELLA BALLARD                     356.   355.   LEE A. BARKAN
   357.    356.   MARCY HAHN-SAPERSTEIN                358.   357.   LISA BERKOWITZ HERRNSON
   359.    358.   MARGARET J. BABB                     360.   359.   LISA G. BARENHOLTZ
   36 1.   360.   MARGUERITE STENSON WYNNE             362.   361.   STEVEN Y ARUSINSKY
   363.    362.   MARK A. SALOMAN                      364.   363.   LAWREN CE R. SAND AK
   365.    364.   MARK J. BIROS                        366.   365.   BRUCE E. BOYDEN
   367.    366.   MARK THEODORE                        368.   367.   LOIS D. THOMPSON
   369.    368.   MARK W. LEVINE                       370.   369.   ROBERT J. LEVINSOHN




I-View-It Confidential                       Page 14 of 66                     Tuesday, April 30, 2013
                               CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
                         CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fl


    371. 370. MARTHA E. GIFFORD                      372. 371. EV AND RO C. GIGANTE
    373. 3 72. MARTIN J . Ol>PENHEIMER               374. 373. ALEXANDRA OPRESCV
    375 . 374. MATITHYOHU BALAS                      376. 375. KELLY BALDWIN
    377. 376. MATTHEW B. SABLOFF                     378. 377. CANDACE SADY
    379. 378. MATTHEW G. HEINZ                       380. 379. CYNARA HERMES
    381. 380. MATTHEW J. MORRIS                      382. 381. SAMANTHA L. MORRIS
    383. 382. MATTHEWS. QUELER                       384. 383. PAUL I. RACHLIN
    385. 384. MATTHEW WALDING                        386. 385. ANA VERMAL
    387. 386. MEGAN H. TINKER                        388. 387. SUSAN A. TURNER
    389. 388. MELISSA BETH DAVIS                     390.   389.   STEPHEN A. DEV ANEY
    391. 390. MEREDITH R. MILLER                     392.   391.   CLAUDE M. MILLMAN
    393 . 392. MICHAEL A. FIRESTEIN                  394.   393.   CHRISTINE E. FLORES
    395. 394. MICHAEL A. KATZ                        396.   395.   WAYNE D. KATZ
    397. 396. MICHAEL E. CALLAHAN                    398.   397.   ROBERT A. CANTONE
    399. 398. MICHAELE. FELDMAN                      400.   399.   TOBIAS FENTON
    401. 400. MICHAELE. FOREMAN                      402.   401.   JAMES H. FREEMAN
    403 . 402. MICHAELE. SIEVERS                     404. 403. ARTHUR F. SILBERGELD
    405. 404. MICHAEL H. WEISS                       406. 405. HOWARD WEITZMAN
    407. 406. MICHAELJ. ALBUM                        408. 407. KENNETH E. ALDOUS
    409.    408.   MICHAEL KRASNOVSKY                410. 409. STEFANIE S. KRAUS
    4 11.   410.   MICHAEL R. TRICARICO              412. 411. MATTHEW H. TRIGGS
    413 .   412.   MICHAELS. SIRKIN                  414. 413. DAVID W. SLOAN
    415.    414.   MICHAEL T. MERVIS                 416.   415.   MICHELLE R. MIGDON
    417.    416.   MICHELE M. OVESEY                 418.   417.   JENIFER DEWOLF PAINE
    419.    418.   MICHELLE ILCZ\'SZ\'N              420.   419.   GLORIA C. JAN
    42 1.   420.   MITCHELL M. GASWIRTH              422.   421.   BERNARD D. GOLD
    423. 422. MORGAN E. HANKIN                       424. 423. WlLLIAM M . HART
    425. 424. MYRON D. RUMELD                        426. 425. BRADLEY I. RUSKIN
    427. 426. NA.NCY A. KILSON                       428. 427. STEVEN